tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/media-business-models-24017/articlesMedia business models – The Conversation2023-11-14T03:02:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168182023-11-14T03:02:16Z2023-11-14T03:02:16ZWhy Google and Meta owe news publishers much more than you think – and billions more than they’d like to admit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/559209/original/file-20231114-17-yg49ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=47%2C47%2C3946%2C2616&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a time of war and populism, the world needs quality information and credible news outlets. Local news is a part of this healthy ecology. </p>
<p>But news publishers have struggled to find ways to make money in recent years – especially as referral traffic and ad revenue from social media sites <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/technology/news-social-media-traffic.html?searchResultPosition=1">continue to fall</a>.</p>
<p>The monopoly power of large platforms, and the control they exert over news distribution, was one reason Australia’s competition authorities introduced the News Media Bargaining Code in 2021.</p>
<p>This code has prompted Google and Meta to strike deals with a number of Australian media organisations, addressing the longstanding conundrum of how to get platforms to pay for news. It has even become a template for other countries looking to compensate their own media businesses. </p>
<p>But what exactly is fair compensation in this case? <a href="https://policydialogue.org/publications/working-papers/paying-for-news-what-google-and-meta-owe-us-publishers-draft-working-paper/">Our new report</a> suggests the amounts of money Google and Meta should be paying news publishers are far greater than anyone imagined, and far more than the tech companies themselves claim.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1722630742772257280"}"></div></p>
<h2>When Australia’s bargaining code went global</h2>
<p>Australia broke new ground when it passed the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-services/news-media-bargaining-code/news-media-bargaining-code">News Media Bargaining Code</a>, <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2022-343549#:%7E:text=The%20review%20considered%20it%20reasonable,been%20made%20without%2">successfully</a> pushing Google and Meta to reach voluntary commercial agreements with a number of media organisations. </p>
<p>It was a world-first piece of legislation, as La Trobe University Professor Andrea Carson <a href="https://techpolicy.press/australias-new-soft-power-bargaining-codes-start-to-spread-globally/">put it</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-led-the-world-its-time-to-finish-what-we-started-188586">Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code led the world. It's time to finish what we started</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, payments made under the code total about A$200 million each year. It’s no surprise <a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2023/news-publishers-facebook-meta-google-money/">other governments</a> are looking at Australia’s law to find ways to get payments for their news too.</p>
<p>Indonesia, <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/big-online-platforms-pay-fair-price-local-news-content#:%7E:text=The%20Government%20will%20legislate%20to,Broadcasting%20Willie%20Jackson%20announced%20today.">New Zealand</a>, <a href="https://www.compcom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/MDPMI_Administrative-timetable_final22.pdf">South Africa</a> and <a href="https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/google-should-pay-millions-for-swiss-news--says-study/48369030">Switzerland</a> have all considered similar laws. <a href="https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2023/September/230921.html">Japan</a> conducted a study on the online distribution of news content, and in September warned tech platforms low payments to publishers <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/09/22/japan/fair-trade-commission-online-news-platforms-antimonopoly-law/">could violate antimonopoly laws</a>.</p>
<p>In Brazil, attempts to introduce <a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2022/an-unholy-coalition-torpedoes-social-media-reform-legislation-in-brazil/">platform remuneration legislation were scuppered</a> in May after significant pressure from Google, but are currently <a href="https://techpolicy.press/brazil-diary-brasilia-tries-again-to-regulate-tech-get-platform-to-pay-for-news/">being revived</a>. </p>
<p>In the United States, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1094">the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act</a>, which would allow collective bargaining by news publishers, was introduced by Democratic Minnesota Senator <a href="https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=A3EDE58E-206C-4283-B1ED-3EA07DAC8EF8">Amy Klobuchar</a> in March. </p>
<p>Then, in June, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/google-meta-big-tech-journalism-fee-california-lawmakers-ec3a926252f59e589e5d48b067c7904e">the California State Assembly passed</a> the California Journalism Preservation Act, which would require large tech companies to share their advertising revenue with news outlets. However, <a href="https://a14.asmdc.org/press-releases/20230707-assemblymember-wicks-senator-umberg-reach-agreement-two-year-bill-ab-886">the bill</a> has been put <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-07-07/california-journalism-bill-on-hold-until-2024">on hold</a> until 2024.</p>
<p>Whether or not the laws pass, Google and Facebook are coming out against them, threatening to drop news from their platforms in several <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-is-giving-up-on-news-again/">countries</a>. Facebook dropped news in Canada in August, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html">in Australia</a> in February 2021 (before bringing it back a short while later).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stuff-up-or-conspiracy-whistleblowers-claim-facebook-deliberately-let-important-non-news-pages-go-down-in-news-blackout-182673">Stuff-up or conspiracy? Whistleblowers claim Facebook deliberately let important non-news pages go down in news blackout</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Google and Meta suggest news isn’t core to their business and can be dropped or de-emphasised. At the same time, reports say they’re continuing to give small amounts of money to publishers. </p>
<p>In fact, interviews we conducted over the past couple of months with people working for different outlets suggest Google has recently been raising payments made to publishers worldwide, in what we think is an attempt to forestall legislation.</p>
<p>Globally, publishers have estimated what <a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2023/news-publishers-facebook-meta-google-money/">they believe they’re owed</a> under platform remuneration acts similar to Australia’s. But these amounts are covered under non-disclosure agreements when publishers make direct deals with Google and Meta.</p>
<p>Our working paper is the first to estimate what Google and Meta owe US publishers. We have made our methodology public so it can be checked and replicated.</p>
<p>We found that in the US, Google and Meta owe news publishers between US$11 billion and US$14 billion per year. This is much more than the sums being paid out, which we know about through interviews and specific cases in which amounts have been made public. </p>
<h2>Sharing surplus value fairly</h2>
<p>At the core of our study and its conclusions is what economists call “surplus” – the additional value created when two sides enter into a mutually beneficial interaction. Importantly, the value generated from the interaction is larger than if the two sides were to operate in isolation.</p>
<p>Digital platforms benefit from having varied, credible and timely news content provided by publishers. This enhances user engagement and makes their platform more attractive to advertisers. News publishers benefit by finding an avenue through which they can distribute their content, thereby reaching more readers.</p>
<p>Our methodology found this additional surplus value generated from the platform-publisher interaction, and then used insights from the economics of bargaining, and from historical benchmarks, to calculate a “fair” payment owed to news publishers.</p>
<p>Our methodology is transparent and replicable, and offers the flexibility to change underlying assumptions based on the market and geography being analysed. With this report, we hope to broaden the discussion over the payments that large digital platforms such as Google and Facebook owe news publishers.</p>
<p>It’s more important than ever that deals between platforms and media businesses are fair and transparent, and that publishers stick together as they negotiate. More value is created when bargaining is collective.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation reached out to Google for comment but did not receive a response before the deadline.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our research is the first to estimate what the tech giants owe publishers. The actual sums paid out are usually covered by non-disclosure agreements.Anya Schiffrin, Senior Lecturer in Discipline of International and Public Affairs, Columbia UniversityHaaris Mateen, Assistant Professor, University of HoustonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1386272020-05-14T14:31:10Z2020-05-14T14:31:10ZCoronavirus is killing quality journalism – here’s one possible lifeline<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335015/original/file-20200514-77259-1bklye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4000%2C2658&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">High-quality reporting is in demand, but how is it going to be supported?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alexsey t17 via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Buzzfeed’s decision <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/13/buzzfeed-pulls-plug-on-uk-and-australian-news-operations">to shut down its coverage</a> of Britain and Australia is a terrible reminder of the crushing financial pressures now bearing down on news media. </p>
<p>When COVID-19 crept undetected across the world at the start of 2020, journalists were already grappling with three interconnected crises. Populist politicians on every continent were <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2020/journalism-under-fire/">attacking journalists</a>. Newspaper newsrooms, which <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/09/local-newspapers-are-suffering-but-theyre-still-by-far-the-most-significant-journalism-producers-in-their-communities/">still generate the majority of original reporting</a>, had seen their advertising revenue drain away while online communication created new routes and platforms for information. And trust in journalists, never high, was <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/reuters-digital-news-report-finds-that-trust-in-the-media-continues-to-fall/s2/a740147/">falling further</a>.</p>
<p>The pandemic accelerated and aggravated a bad situation, twisting it into a new shape. <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/17/21182770/news-consumption-coronavirus-traffic-views">Demand for high-quality news</a> has grown suddenly, bringing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions-coronavirus.html">new readers and subscribers</a>. But advertising revenue, still a significant income for most mainstream news publishers, has collapsed. A matter for serious concern in 2019 has become an emergency in 2020.</p>
<p>The coronavirus crash should impel us as never before to look for new models – both editorial and commercial – and to drive innovation and imagination up a gear. Never, as the saying goes, let a really good crisis go to waste. There is no single solution or magic fix. As one of America’s online journalism pioneers, Jim Brady – former executive editor of the Washington Post – <a href="https://archives.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/q_a_jim_brady.php">told the Columbia Journalism Review in 2009</a> when asked for his answer to journalism’s economic crisis: “There’s no silver bullet – it’s just shrapnel … there isn’t one stream [of revenue] that’s going to be successful.”</p>
<p>This makes reinvention and experiment essential. Journalists must not simply beg for financial sticking plasters for bleeding businesses, but invest in what we might call the infrastructure of public benefit news. We must make sure that the conditions are as good as possible for start-ups and for the re-engineering of news – and for local news above all. Dame Frances Cairncross, in <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_Cairncross_Review_.pdf">her 2019 inquiry report</a> on a “sustainable future for journalism” argued that public funds might be needed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the scale of the challenge, there is a strong case for public intervention to support publishers to develop solutions fit for the digital age.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cairncross also mentioned another change which would cost nothing. She recommended that the government give priority “to exploring the development of a form of tax relief, ideally under the Charities Act … to support public interest journalism”. Neither the government nor the Charity Commission took the hint.</p>
<h2>Charity (faith and hope)</h2>
<p>Tax relief for charities may sound unglamorously administrative, but it matters to high-quality journalism now. Sameer Padania, an expert on philanthropic funding for journalism, <a href="https://www.ariadne-network.eu/introduction-funding-journalism-media/">says that there is “pent-up demand” among donors</a> who would like to meet journalism’s urgent needs. How charity law is applied is one part of ensuring its survival. Good journalism is rarely perfect and often controversial, but it delivers many varied benefits to every society, community and democracy in which it happens. Charity law more imaginatively applied could help to define and entrench high-quality standards in journalism. The Conversation, for example, has been better able to meet hugely increased demand for its evidence-based articles during this pandemic because of its charitable status.</p>
<p>To be eligible for the reputational status of a charity and its financial advantages, an organisation must be “registered” with the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission <a href="https://charitycommission.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/27/read-all-about-it-when-can-journalism-be-charitable/">says that it is open to applications</a> to register journalistic organisations, but in practice very few succeed. The independent fact-checking organisation <a href="https://fullfact.org/">Full Fact</a> was twice rejected by the commission (including an unsuccessful tribunal case) before <a href="https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/full-fact-gets-charity-status-after-being-rejected-twice.html">succeeding at the third attempt</a>. The <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/">Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ)</a> was also rejected twice before <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2019/02/14/the-bureau-investigative-journalism-shows-the-way-funding-public-interest-news">changing its structure</a> so that some of its output could be registered as charitable. These are the kinds of delays and costs which small local news start-ups cannot contemplate.</p>
<p>But when Full Fact did win registration, the effects on its fortunes was an immediate game changer. It receives gift aid of 25% on donations, it can use online fundraising tools and it can raise money from donors who will only give to legally recognised charities. </p>
<p>Rachel Oldroyd, managing editor of the BIJ, says that charitable status is <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2219/pdf/">potentially vital for community newsrooms</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I would argue that particularly at a local level it is low level giving from the wider public that could potentially be a valuable contribution to sustainability. Charitable status would make it much easier to immediately gain the public’s trust.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Public Benefit Journalism Research Centre (PBJRC) – of which I am chair – was set up by a group of lawyers, journalists and academics to look into the issue, and has also applied for charitable status (Oldroyd is also a trustee of the PBJRC). We recently <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2219/pdf/">sent evidence</a> to the House of Lords inquiry into the future of journalism which looks at why so few journalism organisations ever succeed in registering as charities. Our research shows that applicants from news face hurdles which do not seem to be placed in front of other bodies which are similar, such as think tanks. </p>
<p>The Charity Commission is rigidly sceptical of claims that high-quality journalism actually benefits communities large and small. But as the PBJRC says: “Journalistic reporting often delivers content whose educational value is not immediately apparent (and some of the beneficial effect … might take years to become apparent).”</p>
<h2>Public benefits</h2>
<p>Solving this problem does not need a change in the Charities Act. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recognising-new-charitable-purposes-rr1a">law and past judgements make clear</a> that the criteria for allowing the registration of a charity must evolve as society and its priorities change. The PBJRC submission argues that there can be no better time than now to make the application of charity law to journalism more constructive and farsighted.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1095290128908591106"}"></div></p>
<p>Journalism is varied, noisy, political and often controversial. Not all journalism will pass Charity Commission tests, even if those are made easier to pass. Politically partisan journalism and celebrity gossip will not qualify. The PBJRC document also lays out in detail a draft set of rules which a newsroom would have to follow to keep enjoying the benefits of being a charity. These include provisions for independence, objectivity, accountability, transparency and codes of editorial conduct.</p>
<p>It seems unlikely to me that the Charity Commission will shift its position unless nudged to do so by politicians. That is why the PBJRC has sent a detailed plan to the House of Lords committee. Making it easier for news organisations to reach charity funds won’t on its own solve journalism’s crisis – no single change will do that. But it would be profoundly important and possible transformative for the small, inventive start-ups on whose work journalism’s future may well depend.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138627/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Brock is chair of the Public Benefit Journalism Research Centre, a Visiting Professor in Journalism at City, University of London and worked formerly for The Times and The Observer.</span></em></p>Public service journalism is more vital now than ever and should be given charitable status.George Brock, Visiting Professor of Practice (Journalism), City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1375442020-05-05T20:41:30Z2020-05-05T20:41:30ZHow artificial intelligence can save journalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332550/original/file-20200504-83779-1j38ie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=126%2C63%2C3316%2C1994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Newsrooms need to take advantage of what AI can offer and come up with new a business model</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented crisis in journalism that could decimate media organizations around the world.</p>
<p>The future of journalism — and its survival — could lie in artificial intelligence (AI). AI refers “to intelligent machines that learn from experience and perform tasks like humans,” according to Francesco Marconi, a professor of journalism at Columbia University in New York, who has just published a book on the subject: <em><a href="https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Francesco_Marconi_Newsmakers?id=1MqWDwAAQBAJ">Newsmakers, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Journalism</a></em>.</p>
<p>Marconi was head of the media lab at the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and the <em>Associated Press</em>, one of the largest news organizations in the world. His thesis is clear and incontrovertible: the journalism world is not keeping pace with the evolution of new technologies. So, newsrooms need to take advantage of what AI can offer and come up with new a business model.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1255534667253587971"}"></div></p>
<p>For Marconi, journalists and media owners are missing out and AI needs to be at the heart of journalism’s business model in the future. As a <a href="https://professeurs.uqam.ca/professeur/white.patrick/">professor of journalism at the Université du Québec à Montréal</a>, I have been closely following the evolution of this profession since 1990, and I am mostly in agreement with him. </p>
<p>In Canada, <em><a href="https://www.thecanadianpress.com/">The Canadian Press</a></em> news agency is, for example, one of the rare media outlets to use AI in its newsrooms. It has developed a system to speed up translations based on AI. The <a href="https://www.afp.com/en/agency/medialab">_Agence France-Presse</a>_ news agency (AFP) also uses AI to detect doctored photos.</p>
<h2>AI does not replace journalists</h2>
<p>Artificial intelligence is not there to replace journalists or eliminate jobs. Marconi believes that only eight to 12 per cent of reporters’ current tasks will be taken over by machines, which will in fact reorient editors and journalists towards value-added content: long-form journalism, feature interviews, analysis, data-driven journalism and investigative journalism.</p>
<p>At the moment, AI <a href="https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/ai-in-the-newsroom-robots-are-now-helping-drive-up-subscriptions/">robots perform basic tasks</a> like writing two to six paragraphs on sports scores and quarterly earnings reports at the <em>Associated Press</em>, election results in Switzerland and Olympic results at the <em>Washington Post</em>. The outcomes are convincing, but they also show the limits of AI.</p>
<p>AI robots analyzing large databases can send journalists at <em>Bloomberg News</em> an alert as soon as a trend or anomaly emerges from big data.</p>
<p>AI can also save reporters a lot of time by transcribing audio and video interviews. AFP has a tool for that. The same is true for major reports on pollution or violence, which rely on vast databases. The machines can analyze complex data in no time at all.</p>
<p>Afterwards, the journalist does his or her essential work of fact-checking, analyzing, contextualizing and gathering information. AI can hardly replace this. In this sense, humans must remain central to the entire journalistic process.</p>
<h2>A broken business model</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Newsmakers-Artificial-Intelligence-Future-Journalism-ebook/dp/B07RG8FSC6/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Francesco+Marconi+Newsmakers&qid=1588167092&sr=8-1">Marconi is quite right when he explains that the media must develop a paid subscription model</a>, get closer to their communities with even more relevant content, develop new products (newsletters, events, podcasts, videos) and new content. AI can facilitate some of this by generating personalized news: recommendations for readers, for example.</p>
<p>In this sense, AI is part of a new business model based on breaking down media silos. There needs to be a symbiosis in the sense of establishing a “close collaboration” between the editorial staff and other media teams such as engineers, computer scientists, statisticians, sales or marketing staff.</p>
<p>In a newsroom, more than ever before, databases must be used to find stories that are relevant to readers, listeners, viewers and internet users.</p>
<p>And there are already various <a href="https://www.crowdtangle.com/">AI tools available </a>to detect trends or hot topics on the internet and social media. These tools can also help newsrooms distribute content.</p>
<h2>Beware of bias</h2>
<p>Of course, newsroom size must be taken into account. A small weekly or a hyper-local media organization may not have the means to act quickly in adopting AI. But for the others, it’s important to start taking action right away. Journalists need to be better trained and begin to work with start-ups and universities to get the best out of this. AI is not a fad. It is here to stay.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/328213/original/file-20200415-153334-1xc9z3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Journalism is not keeping up with new technologies, writes Francesco Marconi in <em>Newsmakers, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Journalism</em>.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Take the current example of COVID-19. This is an opportunity to analyze public health data to make connections, analyze and dig into the data neighbourhood by neighbourhood and street by street. AI can help with that. But it takes well-trained data reporters to do this work.</p>
<p>One of the dangers of AI, on the other hand, is algorithm bias. Because algorithms are designed by humans, there will <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/bias-in-criminal-risk-scores-is-mathematically-inevitable-researchers-say">always be biases that can alter data analysis and lead to serious consequences</a>. And human verification of content before publication will always remain a safeguard against errors.</p>
<p>AI has also helped developing systems for detecting fake videos (deepfakes) and fake news, which are of course supported by experienced journalists from <em>Reuters</em> and <em>AFP</em>, for example. </p>
<p>In this sense, the transformation of newsrooms is only just beginning and Marconi’s essay is a must-read for identifying survival scenarios for media organizations and journalists. Because that’s what it’s all about. We need to better equip our newsrooms and completely rethink the workflow to achieve better collaboration and better content that will attract new and paying subscribers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137544/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick White ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Journalism is not keeping pace with the evolution of new technologies. Newsrooms need to take advantage of what AI can offer and come up with a new business model.Patrick White, professeur de journalisme , Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1334142020-04-26T12:01:38Z2020-04-26T12:01:38ZNetflix has capitalized on social isolation, but will its success continue in a post-coronavirus world?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330262/original/file-20200424-126775-r225ev.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C71%2C6000%2C3916&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix faces many new challengers in the subscription-based video streaming market.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The coronavirus pandemic has been good business for Netflix: the video streaming service has added <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-adds-more-than-15-million-new-subscribers-stock-rockets-higher-2020-04-21">more than 15 million new subscribers so far this year</a>. From an investing perspective, Netflix always surprises. Either the company’s <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/netflix-stock-first-quarter-earnings-report/">quarterly results turn out to disappoint or amaze</a> — rarely do they stay within expectations.</p>
<p><a href="https://mashable.com/article/netflix-q1-2020-subscribers-coronavirus/">Netflix stocks have soared</a> since the beginning of the pandemic as people practising self-isolation have turned to their TVs for comfort, <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/netflix-stock-first-quarter-earnings-report/">but fell when the latest results were announced</a> because the growth didn’t fully meet expectations. Will the company’s economic performance continue in the post-pandemic age?</p>
<p>Netflix <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44904368">pioneered the subscription-based video streaming business model</a>. For a fixed monthly fee, subscribers gets a virtual smorgasbord of content — Hollywood, Bollywood, <a href="https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2013/nigeria%E2%80%99s-film-industry-potential-gold-mine">Nollywood</a> and dozens of Netflix’s own productions. </p>
<p>Subscribers can search particular movies or just browse through individually tailored recommendations based on their prior viewing habits. Having such a diverse choice of shows may be good for viewers, but it’s not economically efficient from a business perspective.</p>
<h2>A less efficient service</h2>
<p>The subscription model requires Netflix to buy and produce a wide range of movies and TV series, many of which may be of no interest to a majority of viewers. The larger the range of movies, the less efficient the service.</p>
<p>In contrast, pay-by-view models provided by companies like <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/the-lion-king-2019/id1471367629">Apple through its iTunes store</a> require customers to make a clear decision about whether they want to see the movie before renting or purchasing it. More popular movies may be more expensive, less popular movies could be free or viewed for a small fee. This model is efficient for viewers: you only pay for what you consume and your choices are likely to be better informed.</p>
<p>Both business models have pros and cons. Many viewers enjoy consuming a variety of movies from all over the world, often on an ad-hoc basis. This kind of explorative viewing is encouraged by subscription-based models and less likely when you pay by view.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330412/original/file-20200424-163062-1azviif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Netflix business model is based on movies and series that appeal to wide audiences, as well as niche categories.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo Illustration/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, when rival models co-exist in a competitive industry, <a href="https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=mgmt_papers">the more efficient business models tend to win</a>. The market fails first on the production side. When production companies try to acquire financing for new ventures, financiers are more attracted to movies or TV shows that are similar to what’s currently popular. As a result, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/martin-scorsese-avenges-the-auteur">current genres will be strengthened while diversity loses. </a></p>
<h2>Must appeal to niche audiences</h2>
<p>This is less of an issue for subscription-based services that need to satisfy viewers with diverse tastes and preferences. This is the world of Netflix. It’s a complicated world because Netflix needs to have shows that appeal to wide audiences, but it must also offer a range of niche programs. </p>
<p>Netflix has about 167 million viewers, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/business/media/netflix-q1-2020-earnings-nflx.html">and a large portion of the new subscribers this year have come from viewers outside of North America</a>. <a href="https://qz.com/1788491/netflix-earnings-slow-us-growth-and-rapid-international-expansion/">Building a global audience is a crucial factor</a> for Netflix to remain successful. Different regions have different preferences, so internationalization is an advantage for Netflix because of its diverse choice of content. </p>
<p>This diversity aspect changes the game between subscription-based models and pay-by-view models. What may be a niche movie in one region of the world may be mainstream in another.</p>
<p>Pay-by-view models are unlikely to build such a diverse portfolio, so production companies may still be encouraged to distribute their work via Netflix. For example, the TV series <em>Designated Survivor</em> was cancelled after two seasons on ABC. <a href="https://tvline.com/2019/07/24/designated-survivor-cancelled-season-4-netflix/">Netflix picked it up for a third season</a> and then offered viewers <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1147496/Designated-Survivor-60-Days-How-is-Korean-series-Netflix-connected-US-Designated-Survivor">a Korean version of the show</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330414/original/file-20200424-163088-k82h0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Netflix faces many challengers in the subscription-based video streaming market, including a new rival, HBO Max, that will be launched in the U.S. in May.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s difficult to say whether Netflix will end up being the standard of TV watching for generations to come. This will mainly depend on how good they are in fighting the competition in different markets with better productions.</p>
<p><a href="https://mashable.com/article/hbo-max-hdr-4k-devices-price/">HBO Max</a>, a new subscription-based streaming service that will offer access to the many great HBO shows from the past as well as new content, is launching in the United States in May. It joins a crowded market of Netflix competitors like Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Apple TV+. To keep ahead of the competition, Netflix has <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/investing/netflix-cash-burn-stock/index.html">burned through billions of dollars and has seen its long-term debt quadruple since 2015</a>. </p>
<p>While we don’t know whether Netflix will win the game, the TV world is likely to remain more diverse and affordable for viewers.</p>
<p><em>This is a corrected version of a story originally published April 26, 2020. The earlier story incorrectly stated that most of Netflix’s viewers were based in North America.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133414/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Felix Arndt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Netflix has added millions more subscribers as people practice social isolation to control the coronavirus. But service’s diverse menu of content is not an efficient business model.Felix Arndt, John F. Wood Chair in Entrepreneurship, University of GuelphLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1266372019-11-19T14:05:41Z2019-11-19T14:05:41ZLocal news outlets can fill the media trust gap – but the public needs to pony up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301851/original/file-20191114-26207-1rfv82d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=19%2C0%2C4246%2C2820&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The appetite for smart local news is there. The challenge is figuring out how to make it profitable.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/american-state-kentucky-on-map-world-1497157595?src=95c357ea-9b93-45d2-88ad-8a4a95cfb182-1-29">Sharaf Maksumov/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the polarization of America’s media and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/impeachment-democrats-republicans-polarization/601264/">politics</a> reaching a fever pitch, many news consumers – “worn out by a fog of political news,” as a recent New York Times feature <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/polls-media-fake-news.html">put it</a> – are responding by tuning out altogether.</p>
<p>Media distrust, which has <a href="https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer">intensified globally</a> in recent years, is also a likely factor. A recent Gallup poll <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx">found</a> only 13% of Americans trust the media “a great deal,” while 28% indicated that they trust the media “a fair amount.” </p>
<p>However, evidence suggests a more favorable situation for local journalism.</p>
<p><a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ebnyhan/media-trust-report-2018.pdf">Poynter’s 2018 Media Trust Survey</a> and a recent <a href="https://www.knightfoundation.org/reports/state-of-public-trust-in-local-news">Knight Foundation-Gallup study</a> each found that trust in local media is higher than for national media.</p>
<p>Only 31% of Americans say they trust reporting from national news outlets “a great deal” or “quite a lot,” while 45% of Americans say the same for reporting from local news organizations. </p>
<p>Forty-five percent still isn’t great; clearly, there’s work to be done. These efforts are complicated by the fact that <a href="https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/11/01/end-of-local-news/">many newsrooms are struggling financially</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this backdrop, I’m optimistic. I’ve spent two decades <a href="https://damianradcliffe.wordpress.com/about/hyperlocal/">researching</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/damianradcliffe/">working in</a> local news. I believe local media outlets are in a position to creatively cater to audiences burned out by beltway drama. </p>
<p>Here are four ways local newsrooms can forge deeper relationships with the communities they serve. </p>
<h2>1. Interact with readers</h2>
<p>With newsroom employment <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/09/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-dropped-by-a-quarter-since-2008/">down 25% since 2008</a> – the equivalent of 28,000 jobs – there are fewer boots on the ground. Nonetheless, opportunities to engage with audiences are greater than ever.</p>
<p>One way is to be visible – online and in real life.</p>
<p>Journalists can think about opportunities for face-to-face interaction with readers. Some outlets have started holding <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/slow-news-venture-tortoise-creates-inclusive-members-model-with-potential-to-extend-into-local-journalism/">open editorial meetings</a>, in which journalists discuss the stories they’re developing, or <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brews-and-news-with-voice-of-san-diego-journalists-march-20th-tickets-55609776338">meet-and-greets</a> with the public. There are also opportunities to engage with readers via social media, whether it’s through <a href="https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/success-stories/globalnews-live">Facebook Live</a> or Q&As on Reddit, also known as “<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/a4wvov/we_are_the_journalists_who_produced_the/">Ask Me Anything</a>.”</p>
<p>These efforts matter, because local journalists are often the only journalists people ever meet. As a result, they can serve as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-local-journalism-can-upend-the-fake-news-narrative-104630">proxy for perceptions of the wider industry</a>.</p>
<h2>2. Teach the process</h2>
<p>Another way to build trust is to explain how journalism works.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cjr.org/special_report/how-does-journalism-happen-poll.php">Research suggests</a> audiences don’t understand how journalism is produced, nor do they understand some of the terminology reporters deploy.</p>
<p>For example, a <a href="https://www.cjr.org/special_report/how-does-journalism-happen-poll.php">2018 survey</a> found 60% of respondents believed reporters get paid by their sources “sometimes or very often.” <a href="https://twitter.com/mayerjoy">Joy Mayer</a>, director of the <a href="https://medium.com/trusting-news">Trusting News</a> project, <a href="https://soundcloud.com/demystifying-media/joy-mayer">told me</a> that when journalists talk about “anonymous sources,” many people assume the journalist doesn’t know who the source is, either.</p>
<p>It’s not difficult to <a href="https://niemanstoryboard.org/storyboard-category/annotation-tuesday/">address this</a>, and doing so could help engender more trust in journalistic practice.</p>
<p>In December 2018, for example, journalists at The Oregonian published <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/02/the-oregonianoregonlives-ghosts-of-highway-20-named-finalist-for-scripps-howard-award.html">a series</a> about five seemingly disparate crimes and their connection to John Ackroyd, a convicted murderer. But they didn’t just publish the pieces and wait for <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/editors/2019/06/the-oregonianoregonlives-ghosts-of-highway-20-wins-4-regional-emmy-awards.html">the awards</a>. They also shared articles <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2018/12/ghosts-of-highway-20-how-we-reported-the-series.html">outlining</a> their reporting methods, alongside an <a href="https://projects.oregonlive.com/ghostsofhighway20/stories-annotated.pdf">annotated version of the full series</a> with footnotes and links to related documents.</p>
<h2>3. Give readers what they want</h2>
<p>Without this type of transparency, as a recent Knight report <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/articles/local-news-is-more-trusted-than-national-news-but-that-could-change/">acknowledged</a>, trust in local news “is vulnerable to the same perceptions of partisan bias that threaten confidence in the national media.” </p>
<p>One further way to try to eliminate this is to cede some control to the audience.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/12/the-editorial-meeting-of-the-future/">In an article published by Harvard’s Nieman Lab</a>, newsroom consultant Jennifer Brandel and editor Mónica Guzmán argue that it’s important for journalists to shift their approach to coverage. </p>
<p>The editorial meeting of the future, they write, “won’t start with our ideas – we’ll start with the information gaps the public demonstrates they have, and focus our efforts squarely on filling those gaps.”</p>
<p>Getting audiences to <a href="https://www.scpr.org/socal-so-curious/">submit questions</a> and <a href="https://listenerspodcast.uoregon.edu/">listening</a> to their needs can actually <a href="https://www.kuow.org/stories/you-won-t-believe-what-s-at-the-bottom-of-lake-washington">result in stories</a> that journalists might not otherwise have produced.</p>
<p>The Knight Foundation’s <a href="https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/new-gallup-knight-study-local-news-should-be-available-to-all-yet-americans-divided-on-how-to-pay-for-it/">recent research</a> highlighted opportunities to put this principle into operation. Nearly two-thirds of their respondents want more coverage on subjects like drug addiction, K-12 education, the environment and planned public works. They also want local outlets <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/white-papers/characteristics-effective-accountability-journalists/">to do a better job</a> holding those in power accountable.</p>
<h2>4. Encourage readers to pay</h2>
<p>However, the uncertain finances of many small newsrooms are a major roadblock to experimentation and giving readers the content they crave.</p>
<p>Declining revenue has meant more than 1 in 5, or 1,800, local newspapers <a href="https://www.salon.com/2018/10/16/the-u-s-newspaper-crisis-is-growing-more-than-1-in-5-local-papers-have-closed-since-2004/">have closed</a> since 2004. Today, over 1,300 communities <a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2018/about-1300-u-s-communities-have-totally-lost-news-coverage-unc-news-desert-study-finds/">lack</a> original local reporting.</p>
<p>Most readers simply don’t realize how dire the situation is for some outlets. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.journalism.org/2019/03/26/most-americans-think-their-local-news-media-are-doing-well-financially-few-help-to-support-it/">According to the Pew Research Center</a>, 71% of Americans “think their local news media are doing just fine financially.” This may explain why only 14% of them financially supported a local news source in the past year.</p>
<p>Yet <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/11/americans-are-more-willing-to-pay-for-local-news-when-they-knew-local-newspapers-are-in-trouble-a-new-study-says/">readers indicated</a> that they “were more likely to subscribe or otherwise support their local newspaper if it were the only one in their area and at risk of shutting down.” </p>
<p><a href="https://knightfoundation.org/reports/putting-a-price-tag-on-local-news/">New research</a> shows that audiences value local news, and 61% of Americans <a href="https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/440/original/State_of_Public_Trust_in_Local_Media_final_.pdf">say</a> their local news organizations do an “excellent” or “good” job covering what’s going on in their area. But the Knight Foundation’s latest report, “<a href="https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Putting-a-Price-Tag-on-Local-News-final-updated.pdf">Putting a Price Tag on Local News</a>,” also finds that few readers are currently paying for it.</p>
<p>Clearly, many readers don’t realize how precarious things are. Newsrooms therefore must make a better case for the value of their work and why it needs to be supported.</p>
<h2>A civic imperative</h2>
<p>Until then, local outlets will have to <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/11/doing-more-with-less-seven-practical-tips-for-local-newsrooms-to-strrrrretch-their-resources/">do more with less</a>. </p>
<p>This isn’t easy. But even the smallest newsrooms, like the <a href="https://www.cgsentinel.com/">Cottage Grove Sentinel</a> in Oregon, have been able to successfully experiment with <a href="https://cgsentinel.com/article/grove-report-january-22-2019">new formats</a> and ways <a href="https://medium.com/damian-radcliffe/the-rise-of-engagement-online-and-in-real-life-11a0c261a500">to engage with readers</a>. </p>
<p>Americans <a href="https://www.journalism.org/2019/03/26/americans-give-fairly-high-marks-to-their-local-news-media-especially-when-journalists-are-seen-as-connected-to-the-community/">believe local news outlets</a> are accurate, useful, trustworthy and caring. Yet without a vibrant local news industry, <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1078087419838058">fewer people run for office</a> and citizens become <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/local-newspapers-civic-engagement/">less engaged</a> about elections. </p>
<p>“The diminishment of local news is to democracies what climate change is to the environment,” argues <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/people/tim-franklin/">Tim Franklin</a>, the head of Northwestern University’s <a href="https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/">Medill Local News Initiative</a>. “It’s a slow-motion crisis, the effects of which we’re just beginning to see.” </p>
<p>The appetite for hard-hitting, relevant, local news is clearly there. The big question is how best to tap into it and satiate it – all while ensuring local journalists can pay the bills.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Damian Radcliffe continues to engage in freelance creative and consulting work related to his expertise on media and technology matters. He is a member of the Online News Association and has received funding from the Agora Journalism Center and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism to research developments into business models, innovation and civic engagement in local media.</span></em></p>Americans truly value local news. But 71% think that their local news outlets are doing just fine financially – which might explain why only 14% paid for a local news source in the past year.Damian Radcliffe, Caroline S. Chambers Professor in Journalism, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1061582018-11-01T06:57:02Z2018-11-01T06:57:02ZMedia Files: What does the future newsroom look like?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243422/original/file-20181101-173890-1v1veqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=451%2C22%2C6148%2C4880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alan Soon of Splice Media is promising a million dollars to give to start-ups to transform media in Asia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today on Media Files, a podcast about the major themes and issues in the media, we’re looking at the future newsroom. </p>
<p>We often hear about the doom and gloom of established media companies as they shed staff and revenues, but is there hope for journalism and a new style of digital newsroom? We ask of the man with an ambitious mission to launch 100 media start-ups in three years: what does the future newsroom look like? </p>
<p>Our guest is co-founder and CEO of <a href="https://www.thesplicenewsroom.com/">Splice</a> Media, Alan Soon. Based in Singapore, Alan is a former journalist and producer at Yahoo, CNBC, Bloomberg and Kyodo News, and is promising a million dollars to give to start-ups to transform media in Asia.</p>
<p>We talked about:</p>
<p>• Challenges and opportunities for start-ups</p>
<p>• His pledge to launch 100 digital media start-ups in Asia over three years with a $1 million fund – and where the money comes from</p>
<p>• Why he thinks Asia lacks a robust ecosystem around media start-ups.</p>
<p>• How to build communities around membership and make a media start-up financially sustainable.</p>
<p>• Media trends and innovations that he expects we will see more of in the future.</p>
<p>• How limiting the different regulatory environments and political norms such as regard for freedom of expression may be in parts of Asia.</p>
<p>And much, much more.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-files-guardian-australias-katharine-murphy-and-former-mp-david-feeney-on-the-digital-disruption-of-media-and-politics-103243">Media Files: Guardian Australia's Katharine Murphy and former MP David Feeney on the digital disruption of media and politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Media Files is produced by a team of journalists and academics who have spent decades working in and reporting on the media industry. They’re passionate about sharing their understanding of the media landscape, especially how journalists operate, how media policy is changing, and how commercial manoeuvres and digital disruption are affecting the kinds of media and journalism we consume.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/mediafiles">Media Files</a> will be out every month, with occasional off-schedule episodes released when we’ve got fresh analysis we can’t wait to share with you. To make sure you don’t miss an episode, find us and <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/media-files/id1434250621">subscribe on Apple Podcasts</a>, in <a href="https://play.pocketcasts.com/">Pocket Casts</a> or wherever you find your podcasts. And while you’re there, please rate and review us - it really helps others to find us.</p>
<p>You can find more podcast episodes from The Conversation <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/podcast-3738">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-files-abc-boss-michelle-guthrie-sacked-but-the-board-wont-say-why-103752">Media Files: ABC boss Michelle Guthrie sacked, but the board won’t say why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p><em>Recorded at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. Producer: Andy Hazel. Production assistance Gavin Nebauer.</em></p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p>Theme music by Susie Wilkins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Dodd receives funding from the Australian Research Council </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We often hear about media companies shedding staff and revenues, but is there hope? We ask the man with a mission to launch 100 media start-ups in three years: what does the future newsroom look like?Andrea Carson, Incoming Associate Professor at LaTrobe University. Former Lecturer, Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences; Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneAndrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1005922018-07-30T06:09:33Z2018-07-30T06:09:33ZStarter’s gun goes off on new phase of media concentration as Nine-Fairfax lead the way<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-26/what-the-fairfax-and-nine-merger-means-for-you/10039236">Nine-Fairfax Media deal</a>, billed as the biggest shakeup in the Australian media landscape for decades, was widely anticipated once the Turnbull government <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-set-to-win-senate-support-for-media-deregulation-84017">repealed the main anti-concentration laws</a> in 2017. It may well result in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-modern-tragedy-nine-fairfax-merger-a-disaster-for-quality-media-100584">loss of a highly respected independent quality media voice</a>. It has certainly fired the starting gun on a new phase of media concentration.</p>
<p>It’s the latest and arguably the most dramatic episode in the media concentration saga in Australia. This is already among the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437">most concentrated media markets in the world</a>, behind countries like China and Egypt. These developments signal that media diversity policies need a major overhaul to take account of the impact of the media-tech platform giants on traditional news media businesses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australias-media-market-one-of-the-worlds-most-concentrated-68437">Is Australia’s media market one of the world's most concentrated?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In many ways this by now <a href="https://theconversation.com/nine-and-fairfax-media-streaming-towards-a-full-tango-30862">widely telegraphed process of media convergence</a> has been the strategy of two of Australia’s largest legacy media companies to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-26/fairfax-nine-merger-comes-at-a-cost/10039040">survive a bit longer</a> against the onslaught of the Silicon Valley FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) behemoths. If approved it will create Australia’s largest media company – and presumably the loudest private media voice with the most political clout in the country.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1022375568094846977"}"></div></p>
<p>Former prime minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/the-fairfax-takeover-is-exceptionally-bad-news-nine-has-the-journalistic-ethics-of-an-alley-cat">Paul Keating notes</a> that this could have been predicted from the first implementation of cross-media rules back in the late 1980s. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield <a href="https://www.minister.communications.gov.au/minister/mitch-fifield/transcripts/interview-patricia-karvelas-abc-rn-drive">says he’s “ownership agnostic”</a> – if we can just park the fact that it was the government’s horse-trading efforts directed towards crossbench senators that led to precisely this outcome. And the Coalition and its supporters would welcome regulatory <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/ninefairfax-merger-accc-to-examine-impact-on-competition/news-story/e6511274137e317d78da6f90a61b8f18">approval of the deal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> (ACCC).</p>
<p>Many believe that subsuming Fairfax Media will assist in muzzling the edgier, more critical journalism in the group’s mastheads and generally advance an editorial position that is favourable to the government. After all, former Coalition treasurer Peter Costello chairs the Nine board. In the lead-up to a federal election in 2019, the timing could not be better for the conservatives. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-modern-tragedy-nine-fairfax-merger-a-disaster-for-quality-media-100584">A modern tragedy: Nine-Fairfax merger a disaster for quality media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Clock’s ticking for local news</h2>
<p>The deal, if it goes forward, has also fired the starting gun on a process of further dismantling media in the bush. As print media audiences are reaching their expiry dates, we can expect to see the loss of important local newspapers such as the Newcastle Herald and the Launceston Examiner. </p>
<p>Newspapers like these play a key civic journalism role in those communities. They have, for example, pressured governments to set up royal commissions such as the <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/">inquiry into institutional responses to sexual abuse</a>. </p>
<p>So local, regional and suburban journalism will be among the losers in this convergence of media platforms. Even major metro titles like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age are under a cloud as Fairfax’s more profitable digital media assets, such as the Domain real estate site and streaming service Stan, have <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/nine-takeover-of-fairfax-is-about-domain-stan-20180726-h136hm">become the focus of the business</a>.</p>
<p>While some sector-specific <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-changes-to-australias-media-ownership-laws-are-being-proposed-55509">ownership and control rules remain in place</a>, these are limited in number and scope. They apply only to legacy media of commercial television, commercial radio and associated (print) newspapers. The rules would not affect the combined reach of <a href="https://www.9news.com.au">Nine News</a> and Fairfax’s <a href="https://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/">well-recognised online news brand</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-reform-deals-will-reduce-diversity-and-amount-to-little-more-than-window-dressing-83957">Media reform deals will reduce diversity and amount to little more than window dressing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who’s left to defend diversity?</h2>
<p>So will the ACCC’s inquiry come up with any public interest regulatory antidotes? Its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry">digital platforms inquiry</a> does <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Ministerial%20direction.pdf">extend to investigating certain aspects of pluralism or media diversity</a>. This was one of several outcomes of the legislative and policy changes of 2017, which included the repeal of cross-media ownership laws. </p>
<p>However, such a decision by the ACCC would be surprising. That’s because effective media pluralism policy that is capable of addressing these kind of integrated cross-platform deals requires bipartisan support at the highest political levels. That’s not something that tends to happen much in Australian media policy.</p>
<p>Yet the ACCC review and the possibility of regulatory intervention using competition law is the only alternative policy lever available to regulate the adverse consequences of cross-media concentration. </p>
<p>The ACCC inquiry is focusing mainly on market power in relation to advertising on digital platforms. But it is also examining the role of search engines, aggregators and social media platforms and their implications for the production, delivery and consumption of sustainable quality news online.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/issues-paper">issues paper</a> noted that the inquiry would consider “the impact of algorithmic selection on the plurality of news and journalistic content presented to Australian consumers”. Recommendations about the implications of automated news delivery will be critical. </p>
<p>But this new baked-in logic of an automated public sphere is very different to the voice concentration that has arisen out of the calculated deregulation of cross-media laws. As US legal scholar <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3067552">Frank Pasquale argues</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>New methods of monitoring and regulation should be as technologically sophisticated and comprehensive as the automated public sphere they target.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although it is still early days, the regulator is unlikely to stand in the way of media businesses whose rhetoric is all about “scale” and “survival”. In other words, media voice concentration is recast as a second-order issue compared to the survival of these traditional Australian media corporations. </p>
<p>Perhaps that survival duration should be measured in election cycles? Even better, why not look at laws and policies to ensure that the instruments of media policymaking maintain media ownership, pluralism and diversity objectives?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100592/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project studying media pluralism and online news.</span></em></p>Australian media ownership is already among the most concentrated in the world, but if the competition regulator approves the Nine-Fairfax deal, expect the race for survival to produce more mergers.Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Chair, Department of Media and Communications, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/725472017-02-07T10:11:00Z2017-02-07T10:11:00ZMurdoch’s access to British prime minister shows media power still in hands of the few<p>In 1996, when the web was in its infancy, the American technology writer Nicholas Negroponte predicted that the coming digital revolution <a href="http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/p18.htm">would facilitate</a> a “cottage industry of information and entertainment providers”. Twenty years on and the story of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/fake-news-33438">fake news</a>”, which had wide currency during the US election, and was found emanating from basements, cafes and computer labs in the small <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38168281">Macedonian city of Veles</a> would appear to prove Negroponte correct.</p>
<p>Except that we are living in an era when vast sections of our media, both “old” and “new”, are controlled by a tiny number of giant corporations, most of which dominate their particular sectors and face minimal competition. </p>
<p>Take the local news sector which only recently argued that an arbitration system as proposed by <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-press-regulation-is-concerned-were-already-being-fed-post-truth-journalism-70812">Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act</a> would <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/section-40-penalising-free-press-undermines-democracy-offends/">undermine plucky community-based titles and weaken local democracy</a>. The problem is that five conglomerates <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf">account for 80% of all local newspaper titles</a> while the remaining 58 publishers account for just 20% of titles.</p>
<p>Or take the UK’s supposedly competitive national newspaper market where five companies – largely presided over by tax exiles and media moguls – <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf">control 90% of daily circulation</a>. If you take online readership into account, which bumps the Guardian up the rankings, then six companies fall into this category.</p>
<p>The situation is even more dire when it comes to the increasingly profitable digital world. Yes, it’s possible to argue that there is a cottage industry of, for example, app and video game developers. But distribution – the means by which content actually becomes available to consumers – is subject to serious bottlenecks because of the grip exerted by dominant companies. </p>
<p>So while there may be thousands of digital start-ups, they have to face the fact that Apple and Spotify alone account for <a href="https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/have-spotify-and-apple-music-just-won-the-streaming-wars/">63% of the global streaming market</a> and that Facebook is fast becoming the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/15/facebooks-news-publishers-reuters-institute-for-the-study-of-journalism">most popular digital platform</a> for news. Meanwhile Google has some <a href="https://www.emarketer.com/Article/How-Much-Search-Traffic-Actually-Comes-Googling/1011814">90% of global desktop search</a> and Google and Facebook together account for <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-21/google-and-facebook-divide-up-your-advertising-viewing">around two-thirds of all digital advertising in the US</a>. According to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6c6b74a4-3920-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7">the Financial Times</a>, 85 cents of every dollar spent on digital advertising in America went to those two companies in the first quarter of last year – evidence of “a concentration of market power in two companies that not only own the playing field but are able to set the rules of the game as well”.</p>
<h2>Setting the agenda</h2>
<p>One of the great misconceptions, however, is that the bewildering market power wielded by the likes of Google and Facebook has come at the expense of the mainstream press and broadcasters. Established, reputable, professional news organisations and the “real news” that they produce, are apparently losing the ever evolving struggle for eyeballs. </p>
<p>It is a misconception because it conflates decline in the traditional market for news with a weakening of gate-keeping and the influence of editorial agendas. Although commercialism and agenda have always been closely intertwined, they have never been the same thing. Ironically, the power vacuum left by evaporating profits and retreating corporate investors in news publishers has put many newsrooms back in the hands of extremely wealthy individuals, from local oligarchs in Eastern Europe like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/world/oligarchs-of-eastern-europe-scoop-up-stakes-in-media-companies.html?_r=0">Lajos Simicska in Hungary</a> to dot.com billionaires <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-the-washington-post-changed-after-jeff-bezos-acquisition-2016-5">such as Jeff Bezos</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155830/original/image-20170207-30928-n5dd85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mainstream press dominated by six big companies who control 85% of uk circulation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lenscap Photography</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The missing piece of the puzzle is the complex ways in which Google, Facebook and Twitter are, if anything, reinforcing the agenda-setting power of the mainstream news brands. <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-algorithm-change-fake-news-rankbrain-2016-12">Google’s news algorithm</a>, for instance, gives priority weighting to news providers with scale, volume and those who cover topics that are widely covered elsewhere. </p>
<p>The problem with fakery is not so much the cottage news industry, but dominant algorithms and ideologically polarised audiences that are supposedly enabling it to flourish. It is, after all, nothing new: the tabloid press will certainly not be remembered for being champions of truth-telling. The problem is more to do with the failure of those very news brands that Google considers “<a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140188859.pdf">reliable sources</a>” to offer a meaningful corrective to fakery – and, worse, their tendency to amplify it.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828613699883630593"}"></div></p>
<p>As for the post-truth politics of Trump, it wasn’t his provocative and offensive “tweets” that enabled him to burst on to the mainstream political scene, but the way in which mainstream news networks were, from the outset, <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/media-advertising-news-radio-trump-tv/">hanging on his every word</a>. The more offensive, provocative, outlandish the comment – the bigger the lie – the more newsworthy it became. Twitter gave him a platform, but mainstream news provided the microphone, and it is amplification – the ability to be heard – that is the major currency of agenda power.</p>
<h2>Media elite</h2>
<p>We are, therefore, witnessing not the demise of concentrated “voice”, but its resurgence in more subtle ways.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828607289301020677"}"></div></p>
<p>What can be done about this? We can hardly rely on our elected governments when they seem more comfortable to bow down to digital giants and media barons than to challenge them. For example, the latest research carried out by the Media Reform Coalition and the campaign group 38 Degrees shows that there has been an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/05/rupert-murdoch-access-to-downing-street-theresa-may-david-cameron">increase in the number of private meetings</a> between representatives of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire and government ministers ahead of Murdoch’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/murdoch-sky-bid-is-a-nasty-christmas-headache-for-the-culture-secretary-70599">bid to take full control of Sky</a>, the UK’s largest broadcaster. </p>
<p>In September 2016 alone, News Corp’s chief executive, Robert Thompson, had back-to-back meetings with the prime minister, Theresa May, the chancellor of the exchequer, Philip Hammond, and the culture secretary, Karen Bradley. May even found time to meet with Murdoch that month during a one night trip to New York.</p>
<p>The major problem facing our democracy isn’t the subterranean digital activities of Macedonian teenagers corrupting a supposedly pure news environment. Instead, it’s the fact that we have a media culture that is dominated by billionaire proprietors and elite insiders and a political culture that is too fearful of this media power ever to challenge it. “Fake news” may be grabbing the headlines but we shouldn’t forget about the concentrated market power that has allowed it to thrive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Des Freedman is a former chair of the Media Reform Coalition.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Schlosberg is the current Chair of the Media Reform Coalition</span></em></p>It’s not alternative facts we need to worry about, it’s the fact that moguls still dominate the media, both old and new.Des Freedman, Professor of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of LondonJustin Schlosberg, Lecturer in Journalism and Media, Birkbeck, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/557622016-03-09T19:00:03Z2016-03-09T19:00:03ZMedia giants need advertising scale in a world drowning in content<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114200/original/image-20160308-15341-1f2wq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The stream of digital content shows no signs of slowing down.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The divide between editorial and commercial, church and state in publishing traditions, is now a millstone for the industry. </p>
<p>That old-school separation used to mitigate in favour of strong, independent journalism. But these days no publishing business can afford to ignore the realities of commercial content. The blurry line between advertising and editorial has never been more blurry. Commercial partnerships are the name of the media game. </p>
<p>It’s sometimes a challenge for journalists and editors to understand this new reality.</p>
<p>Against that background, what does the advertising outlook promise for 2016? </p>
<p>It’s a sector likely to be closely watched as the major players consider strategic plays brought on by upcoming changes to media legislation?</p>
<h2>Ad sales expectations</h2>
<p>Martin Sorrell, boss of global media group WPP, is gloomy about the year ahead. </p>
<p>In a recent market update <a href="http://www.wpp.com/wpp/investor/financialnews/2016/mar/04/wpp-2015-preliminary-results/">Sorrell warned</a> that clients globally were pulling back on ad spends. He wrote that in 2016 he expects to see:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“tepid GDP growth, low or no inflation and consequent lack of pricing power encourage a focus on cutting costs to reach profit targets, rather than revenue growth.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some of WPP’s agency brands in Australia include GroupM, Mediacom, Mindshare, Y&R Brands, Ogilvy, and Wunderman. It’s a market reach that provides good intelligence.</p>
<p>Sorrell says despite the outlook he expects a boost from the Olympics and a US presidential election (and an Australian federal election) putting marketing investment above the normal advertising share. That will be a helpful bump for Australian media players as positioning begins ahead of expected law changes. But will it be enough?</p>
<h2>Advertising sales teams must band together</h2>
<p>Make no mistake, despite the recent focus on subscription models for new publishing and video streaming services, the main income for media companies is still advertising. So whoever pulls together the best sales plan and a solid national footprint, will be most likely to do well at the forthcoming auctions. </p>
<p>The obvious plays have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/media-regulation">well canvassed</a>: Fairfax Media joining with Nine Entertainment, and/or News Corp Australia and the Ten Network. In addition, companies like Google and Facebook may be in the market for some local content. If one or both of those digital giants made major Australian purchases they could significantly push the local industry further towards programmatic sales and continue the slide in overall ad values.</p>
<p>Outside of those names, it’s hard to see anything but minor localised opportunities. The big combinations are the only ones that could bring a real national focus to the sales efforts and the required audience reach.</p>
<p>But for any mergers to succeed long term the new entities will need to properly invest in journalism and content that can attract substantial audiences. And, yes. We’ve heard that before.</p>
<h2>Content plays</h2>
<p>The problem is, we’re drowning in content. </p>
<p>The proliferation of second-rate content is creating extra downward pressure on an advertising model that relies on some level of scarcity to create demand and yield that can be priced effectively. The more material there is in the market competing for limited direct ad sales and soaking up cheap inventory on ad networks, the harder it is for the good stuff to get made.</p>
<p>In a 2013 essay for The Atlantic, Alexis Madrigal <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/2013-the-year-the-stream-crested/282202/">wrote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The necessity of nowness plus the professionalization of content production for the stream means that there are thousands and thousands of people churning out more crap than can possibly be imagined.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The stream shows no sign of slowing down.</p>
<p>But merger deals that can offer the prospect of new content packages and combinations of material to attract audiences at scale will be attractive to some investors. More than ever, though, the pressure coming from those deals will be on editors and producers to make the packages unique and compelling viewing. Creative minds have to be sharper and faster these days.</p>
<h2>The dilemma</h2>
<p>Because of the volume of free material, the scarcity of money and the pressure to differentiate a product, the border for editors and producers between journalism and advertising is now a regularly negotiated and often contested space. </p>
<p>Editorial values are crucial to getting this right, for the benefit of all. And these days that means letting go of the old assumptions about the divide between editorial and sales; understanding, and being part of the sales team’s efforts.</p>
<p>It will probably also mean negotiating on production quality to service a demand for portable, fast-turnaround material. As all types of media migrate to web delivery, video production costs will continue to decline allowing choices for package quality and pricing. </p>
<p>Media publishers will be able to bundle different types of content and production quality for different types of customers, retail and commercial. </p>
<p>If a cheap, lightweight production team can produce as much, high-value material as a full-service broadcast team the commercial decision is straightforward.</p>
<p>Long-term success for Australian media companies will be built on the ability of their editorial managers and journalists to work closely and productively with their sales and marketing colleagues - building bridges rather than walls.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whoever pulls together the best sales plan and a solid national footprint, will be most likely to do well at the forthcoming auctions.Hugh Martin, Lecturer in Journalism, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/555852016-03-03T11:31:42Z2016-03-03T11:31:42ZThe future of journalism is being built today – what you need to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113573/original/image-20160302-25866-1xpx63w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Take a hint.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://xkcd.com/1601/">xkcd</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</p>
<p>No model is proving to be the saviour of journalism but experiments to figure out how to make money as news consumption moves online is ongoing. In our series Business Models for the News Media, we invited leading academics to comment on the efficacy and potential impact of some of those new models.</p>
<p>By looking closer at how news organisations are trying to stay afloat and relevant, this series also opens a window into the hopes and fears of an entire profession.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/are-paywalls-saving-journalism-53585">Paywalls are having some success</a></strong></p>
<p>The Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post have all implemented some form of paywall, requiring readers to pay to access content. But others, like The Guardian and the Daily Mail’s MailOnline have not. It seems as though it works for some but not for others. Why?</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/will-crowdfunding-save-journalism-54070">Crowdfunding raised hopes for a while</a></strong></p>
<p>The likes of Kickstarter and De Correspondent in the Netherlands raise the prospect of crowdfunding as a new funding model for journalism. Many see it as having the potential to make journalism viable for the future. But we may be kidding ourselves (to some extent, at least).</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/are-micropayments-a-viable-way-to-support-the-news-business-53586">Micropayments have a sustainability issue</a></strong></p>
<p>Can you spare a dime to support journalism? The micropayment model is betting that you can. And perhaps it’s right in certain cases. What if you can receive something unique, such as personalised news, for 10p?</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/tech-companies-are-eating-journalists-lunch-shouldnt-they-at-least-pay-for-it-53086">A tech levy can save journalism</a></strong></p>
<p>The premise is simple enough: tech companies such as Facebook, Apple and Twitter are eating journalists’ lunch, so shouldn’t they at least pay for it? A levy on companies that benefit from journalism would help save the news business.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/will-people-club-together-to-ensure-the-survival-of-quality-journalism-54754">Membership schemes target superfans</a></strong></p>
<p>Would you join a “news club”? The Guardian is betting at least some of its future on launching a membership scheme which offers member benefits (talks, concerts among other things) to people who identify enough with its brand to join. Plus you get the warm fuzzy feeling of supporting something worthwhile.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Journalism is in an existential crisis. Whether it can survive will depend on experiments news organisations are carrying out now.Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate EditorKhalil A. Cassimally, Head of Audience Insights, The Conversation InternationalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/553882016-02-29T19:07:03Z2016-02-29T19:07:03ZThe Guardian’s costly gap between traffic and profits<p>The Guardian is a perplexing media phenomenon – a digital media company with the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/8">third highest global readership in English</a> that nonetheless appears to be on the brink of a financial crisis.</p>
<p>Later this month employees at the London headquarters will find out how many of them face redundancy, as the company tries <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/12120006/Guardian-to-slash-costs-by-a-fifth-as-losses-mount.html">to cut annual running costs by A$105 million</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4698745.ece">The Times</a> of London reported last week that The Guardian is hoping to do this without resorting to compulsory redundancies. According to The Times, The Guardian’s management is said to have increased its cap on leaving packages from A$174,000 to A$289,000 in the hope of “encouraging the elite to take a bullet for the good of the workers”. </p>
<p>Keen readers of the online editions will be heartened to know that the Australian and American operations are <a href="http://www.melbournepressclub.com/event/watch-online-digital-invaders-in-our-media-patch">“completely insulated”</a> from the cuts, according to Guardian Australia editor Emily Wilson. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/mediaWorkingPapers/pdf/WP39FINAL.pdf">In a paper</a> published last week by The London School of Economics and Political Science, I explored aspects of The Guardian’s transformation from a national newspaper into a global digital brand. One of the areas I investigated was its emerging strategic plan.</p>
<p>The principal part of the plan was, and continues to be, the growth of its online international readership. The Guardian was an early adopter in the digital arena, with online publication of various parts of its business from 1994/5 onwards.
After success with a UK digital edition of the paper, the former editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger gave the green light to a US edition in 2011.</p>
<p>Guardian US, now edited by Lee Glendinning, has 50 journalists and three offices in New York, Washington and San Francisco. It was ranked 17th in the country in 2015 in the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/digital-top-50-online-news-entities-2015/">Pew Center’s Digital Top 50 Online Entities</a>. With over half of its readers now coming from mobile, it recently won <a href="http://knightfoundation.org/press-room/press-release/guardian-us-launch-news-innovation-lab-focused-usi/">US$2.6 million from the Knight Foundation</a> to launch a news innovation lab, “focusing on using mobile technology to create deeper journalism”.</p>
<p>Guardian Australia was launched in 2013 with money from multi-millionaire Wotif.com co-founder Graeme Wood. The size of the investment loan has never been confirmed but was reported by <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/10/media-briefs-nine-locks-down-15-million-to-guardian-australia-keating-responds/">Crikey.com</a> to be A$14.9 million. Editor-in-chief Katharine Viner (now UK-based) insisted that without this money, the edition would never have come into being.</p>
<p>Today the website has 42 journalists plus offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. The <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/au/en/press-room/2015/nielsen-online-news-rankings-jan15.html">Nielsen Online Ratings</a> for the month of January 2016, show Guardian Australia came in at 7th position nationwide with 1.8 million unique viewers. </p>
<p>And finally in 2015, The Guardian launched an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2015/apr/20/giving-our-international-readers-a-fresh-take-on-the-news">“international edition”</a>. This edition will be a lot cheaper to run as it will not be commissioning but will instead be aggregating the best global stories from the front pages of the other editions.</p>
<p>The Guardian has financed this overseas expansion through the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust">Scott Trust</a> an investment portfolio set up in 1936, which allows richer parts of the group to subsidise the poorer partner – in this case, the newspaper. But the fund’s value has decreased by A$194 million to A$1.423 billion over the past six months, according to the <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/83512944-c35e-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html#axzz41EMw1hjI">Financial Times</a>. </p>
<p>Readership of the newspaper is falling, with year-on-year figures from the <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf">Audit Bureau of Circulations</a> (July 2015) down by 7.07% to 168,369 readers. </p>
<p>But ditching the print version of The Guardian does not appear to be on the agenda. Back in October Katharine Viner told me: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The newspaper model was a really good model and it still is, it’s just we know it’s got a time limit on it. I think some years ago, it looked more imminent than it does now.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But given that the print version of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/12153947/The-Independent-newspaper-confirms-an-end-to-print-production.html">Independent newspaper</a> finishes later this month, and the decline in revenue from print advertising is currently <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-guardian-counts-the-costs-of-its-global-ambitions-a6833846.html">down 25% per year</a>, this timeline might need to come forwards. </p>
<p>With regards to paywalls, Viner was equally unmoved: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I would never say never on pay-walls. I’m not convinced that they work financially.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With these options seemingly off the table for the moment, The Guardian is left with trialling more acceptable forms of paying for stories. It has conducted a range of experiments with “branded content”, sponsorship and native advertising. </p>
<p>But the recent collapse in digital ad-spend has been a further blow – with advertisers preferring to spend their money on Google, Facebook and Twitter rather than on “legacy media”. According to Viner, this decrease in digital ads, combined with the arrival of ad blockers, means that this is “a precarious model”. </p>
<p>Like other media players, The Guardian has also been involved in an experiment with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/13/bbc-news-guardian-facebook-instant-articles">“instant articles”</a> on Facebook. Viner was philosophical: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“You know, Facebook has 1.4 billion users. I wouldn’t mind getting close to a few of those.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the meantime, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-guardian-counts-the-costs-of-its-global-ambitions-a6833846.html">speculation continues in the media</a> with some commentators wondering if the Guardian HQ at Kings Place might not get sold off along with its proposed events venue – the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/membership/midland-goods-shed-progress/2014/sep/10/-sp-midland-goods-shed-guardian-events-membership-building-space">Midland Goods Shed</a>.</p>
<p>For her part, Viner is persuaded of the value of tapping Guardian loyalty – by extracting cash in exchange for different levels of enhanced membership. She wants editorial to be much more involved in the program. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>"It could be anything from a quarterly magazine to a members-only space to discuss an event online, or discuss a good piece online, talk boards, meet-ups, even phone calls from me!”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The new <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-news-and-media-slash-%C2%A353m-annual-budget-curb-losses">three-year plan</a> aims to “focus international growth on the US and Australia, increasing their contribution to the overall business”. It has yet to be revealed how they will put this plan into action in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colleen Murrell gathered the data for this paper while on sabbatical at LSE as a visiting senior research fellow.</span></em></p>With ad blockers hurting digital, and print readership declining, The Guardian’s plans to take on the world face strong headwinds.Colleen Murrell, Course Director and Senior Lecturer, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/555292016-02-29T16:25:30Z2016-02-29T16:25:30ZWill readers rise to greet The New Day? Here’s what I thought of Britain’s new paper<p>The New Day, Trinity Mirror’s attempt to breathe life into the generally moribund world of UK national daily newspapers, has been launched after a <a href="http://www.brandrepublic.com/article/trinity-mirror-launches-5m-ad-campaign-new-day/1385252?bulletin=brandrepublicnewsbulletin&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=eNews%20Bulletin&utm_source=20160226&utm_content=www_brandrepublic_com_art_3%20">£5m advertising campaign</a> and much industry speculation about who its market is and whether it can survive when all other newspapers are finding it so tough.</p>
<p>But optimism is the name of the game here – and (professing to already know all about the paper’s readhership) <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/there-nothing-greater-launching-national-newspaper-says-editor-new-day-0">Zoe Harris</a>, the group marketing director at Trinity Mirror Group and the publishing director for The New Day, said last week:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The launch campaign captures the spirit of how our reader feels – upbeat and positive, and relishing life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And that broadly sums up today’s – free – first edition. Its front page is certainly distinctive – it should more realistically be called a cover, leading as it does with an emotive colour photograph and issue piece on child carers. The turquoise, black and white title font is anchored neatly with the platitudinous, inclusive buzz phrase: “Life’s short: let’s live it well”. </p>
<p>Indeed, the message is very much that this <em>our</em> paper – on an otherwise content-free page eight we are told it’s “strangely empty” because the editors want readers to fill it with “thoughts about what they’ve written” and “stories and pictures that you’d love to share”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"704065076131700737"}"></div></p>
<h2>New best friend</h2>
<p>There are two editorials in the space of three pages which remind us that New Day can’t be “just another newspaper”. It is, writes editor Alison Phillips, modern and upbeat for “modern, glass half-full kind of people”. I think this folksiness a little overdone – the paper clearly wants to be your new best friend, full of sage advice and warm-hearted intentions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113272/original/image-20160229-4066-1rcsvzg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=917&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just look at the weather map on the back page with its utterly futile info bites:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What shall I wear? Hats, gloves, scarves and maybe a muffler to face a cold, and in some places, frosty morning.</p>
<p>Take it with you: An umbrella or raincoat will be useful in the north-west.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, I never! Who knew?</p>
<h2>Not your average paper</h2>
<p>But let’s park the cynicism. This is indeed an unconventional newspaper. There is no sport at all on the back pages. There is some sort of round-up near the middle pages but the colour photographs occupy most of the space and there are no live reports nor is there any analysis. There is no TV guide, either. What news there is is digested and condensed. In fact, The New Day is more akin to a conventional women’s magazine than it is to a recognisable tabloid.</p>
<p>And maybe that’s the point – <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/new-day-trinity-mirrors-new-national-newspaper-to-go-on-sale-next-monday-a6888546.html">Simon Fox</a>, the chief executive of Trinity Mirror, told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme last week that the paper would place an emphasis on reporting for women – and I noticed that nearly all of the prominent writers were women, too; only five were male and they were all well known for their expertise outside journalism. Such as David Cameron.</p>
<p>The commitment from Alison Phillips is not to sensationalise the news or to terrify the readers. There is to be no political bias or traditional leader columns. With all this in mind, one of the chief difficulties of the staff of around 25 will be creating enough content each and every day to fill the 40-odd pages. Perhaps this will be done through user-generated material and the willingness of the editorial team to continue to showcase the political views of “ordinary” members of the public. </p>
<p>One of the truly impressive innovations notable in The New Day is a two-page spread on the EU which gives equal prominence (in image, too) to the writing of the Prime Minister and Emma Thurston, an art teacher from London. <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/02/new-national-daily-newspaper-without-website-launching-today-can-it-work">The New Statesman</a> also reports that editorial meetings will be filmed and put online in an attempt to engage with readers about how they would like a story covered.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"704268498344800256"}"></div></p>
<p>As I said earlier, the emphasis on issues and lifestyle seems to me borrowed from the staple diet of a women’s magazine. As well as the lead article on child carers there is an item on albino babies and bullying in schools. These serious stories sit alongside the more whimsical “moment of my life” pieces, inevitable quiz pages and eternal (but topical) conundrums, such as why women are so scared of proposing. </p>
<h2>Leap of faith</h2>
<p>So The New Day delivers exactly what it promised. For readers embittered by the relentless sermonising and negativity of the Great British press, this is the paper is for you. And despite the fact that it has overplayed the “newness” aspect, I thought this morning’s edition contained enough variety and innovation to separate itself from its competitors.</p>
<p>The key question is, of course, can it survive in an environment where sales of newspapers continue to <a href="https:/theconversation.com/the-future-is-digital-lets-hope-the-online-only-independent-will-be-part-of-it-54786">spiral downwards?</a>. The New Day will be on sale for 25p for the next two weeks before selling for 50p after that. In the major cities of the UK it will have to compete with the free Metro and in London with the Metro and the (also free) Evening Standard. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"703894175767523328"}"></div></p>
<p>There is also the rather bold decision taken by the publishers of the “<a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/02/22/trinity-mirror-s-new-day-newspaper-vies-facebook-news-feed-style-won-t-get-sit">newspaper of the digital age</a>” not to actually have a digital edition. Maybe that’s one clever ploy and maybe advertisers will return to print now that iPhone and iPad owners <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/20/ad-blocking-threat-publishers-apple-ios9">can download apps</a> that will block ads on web pages.</p>
<p>It seems to me that The New Day is rather like the BuzzFeed model of news, in style and concept, re-adapted for the pre-internet era. Whether or not the “time poor” target audience of 35- to 55-year-olds are prepared buy into it is something we will find out sooner rather than later.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
It’s the first standalone daily newspaper to launch in the UK for 30 years. So what’s it like?John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/530862016-02-29T13:10:22Z2016-02-29T13:10:22ZTech companies are eating journalists’ lunch. Shouldn’t they at least pay for it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113206/original/image-20160229-4105-i1kjen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">21st-century media baron Jack Dorsey.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Get Everwise</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</em></p>
<p><em>In the latest in our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">business models for the news media</a>, Richard Jones asks whether tech companies that benefit from journalism should pay a levy to help sustain it.</em></p>
<p>Twitter <a href="http://www.journalismfestival.com/news/the-hopes-of-the-future-of-journalism-rely-on-twitter/">was once described</a> as the most significant innovation in journalism since the telephone. <a href="http://amecorg.com/2015/02/journalists-use-of-social-media-peaked-new-social-journalism-study-from-cision/">More than three quarters of journalists in the UK</a> use it to gather stories, promote their own work and keep up with what’s going on.</p>
<p>But Twitter is in trouble. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0%2F0fd28b26-d041-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#axzz41YiBefQU">User growth slows every quarter, and is flat in the US</a>. Squished between Facebook, Google and Apple, and under pressure to do more to tackle abuse, Twitter has lost some of its sparkle, not least to Facebook-owned Instagram and WhatsApp.</p>
<p>Now back at the helm of the company he co-founded, Jack Dorsey recently signalled that Twitter’s most famous feature – the 140-character limit – might soon be lifted.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"684496529621557248"}"></div></p>
<p>Allowing publishers to post extended messages or even full articles could encourage users to spend longer on Twitter. This has seemed a likely move ever since Facebook introduced its own <a href="https://instantarticles.fb.com/">Instant Articles</a> feature last year, cajoling news companies to put content there instead of on their own websites.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113216/original/image-20160229-4080-tb31fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Instantly engaged.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Plus31 Media</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instant Articles may be a better experience for readers – they’re on Facebook anyway and don’t have to wait for an article laden with data-heavy adverts to load up from the open web. But for traditional publishers who have seen print dollars turn into digital dimes, the prospect of Facebook pennies <a href="http://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-business/facebooks-expansion-instant-articles-next-step-plan-internet-dominance">is not exactly enticing</a> – and from April <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2016/02/17/facebook-is-opening-up-instant-articles-to-all-publishers/#f6de7a852851">Facebook will open Instant Articles up to all news publishers</a>. <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9467149/google-accelerated-mobile-pages-caching-preview">Google</a> and <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8746289/apple-tktk-looks-like-flipboard-and-replaces-newsstand-on-your-iphone">Apple</a> now have fast-loading formats of their own. </p>
<p>News companies could be forgiven for finding this exasperating. For the best part of two centuries, newspapers could make handsome profits on a reliable mixture of cover price and advertising sales. Now, trying to focus on a viable business model is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">constant challenge for news publishers</a> – and one that tech companies are not necessarily helping with.</p>
<h2>Sharing economy</h2>
<p>Which is why some journalists think the tech giants should start giving the news companies a bit more love. And by love, I of course mean cash. Sharing news articles is a big part of what people do on Facebook, Twitter and the rest. So, if the makers of that news are struggling financially, isn’t it right that Silicon Valley shares some of its vast profits with them?</p>
<p>The growing power that Facebook in particular has is certainly quite something, with <a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/news/2015/News_consumption_in_the_UK_2015_executive_summary.pdf">Ofcom reporting that almost a third of all Britons now use it for news</a>. At one time, newspapers only had to worry about keeping the print unions onside to make sure their product got into the hands of readers. Now, a change to a line of code by an engineer at Facebook HQ <a href="http://digiday.com/publishers/facebook-cutting-social-publishers/">can have a dramatic impact</a> on how many users will ever see a link posted by a publisher in their news feeds. It’s a loss of control to which the news business is unsurprisingly battling to adapt.</p>
<p>Some commentators have called for a bail-out to help the legacy news companies. Maybe <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/23/broadband-levy-save-newspapers">a levy on broadband</a> to be distributed among the papers might be the thing, or even some kind of direct state subsidy <a href="http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/france-media-press.62b">as in France</a> and the <a href="http://www.robertpicard.net/PDFFiles/subsidiesnordicmodel.pdf">Nordic countries</a>.</p>
<h2>Declining values</h2>
<p>But then, the counter-argument goes, just why should successful companies prop up less successful ones? Henry Ford wasn’t exactly rushing to share the profits from the Model T with the horse-and-carriage makers left in his slipstream.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113211/original/image-20160229-4096-z905ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newspapers: a bit old hat these days?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kate Ter Haar</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While traditional publishers can rightly say they were caught out by the pace of change in modern media, many hastened their own problems through bad decisions. Just as <a href="https://twitter.com/jack">@Jack</a> was sending his first tweet, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/19/johnstonpress.citynews">Johnston Press was paying £160m for The Scotsman and its sister titles</a>. Just seven years later, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos splashed out the same amount for no less than The Washington Post, out of his own pocket.</p>
<p>No disrespect to the venerable Edinburgh institution, but it’s no longer worth the same as the paper of Woodward and Bernstein. The Scotsman even had to downsize offices, replaced in its old HQ by new media powerhouse Rockstar North, the makers of Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption.</p>
<p>Trying to predict the road to redemption for traditional news companies is a mug’s game. But working constructively with the tech giants while also throwing more spaghetti at the wall – <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-people-club-together-to-ensure-the-survival-of-quality-journalism-54754">membership and subscription models</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-micropayments-a-viable-way-to-support-the-news-business-53586">micropayments</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-crowdfunding-save-journalism-54070">crowdfunding</a>, better terms for ads around the distributed content hosted on other platforms – seems a better bet than simply getting a begging bowl out.</p>
<p>Just don’t ask me to put any money on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53086/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tech and social media companies that benefit from using news content should help support journalism.Richard Jones, Lecturer, Journalism and Media, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/543292016-02-25T19:03:25Z2016-02-25T19:03:25ZWhy sports broadcasting could change the rules on sponsored content<p><em>The global media sector continues to adapt slowly to digital disruption. Paywalls are yet to make up for the loss of print advertising revenue, and experiments continue with sponsored content and micropayments. In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/media-business-models">media business models</a> series we explore the green shoots in media models – what’s working, and what’s yet to be proven.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>As media businesses the world over struggle to identify successful new business models, sponsored content has been pounced on as one potential solution. The model – where brands pay media organisations to produce content related to their product – is increasingly being applied to sports broadcasting.</p>
<p>Sport is an expensive media product. A recent estimate of the market found media organisations were <a href="http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-au-tmt-televisions-business-model-031014.pdf">paying $US28billion</a>, per year, for sports rights. Except that figure was based solely on professional sports, and therefore does not factor in deals like the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-08/nbc-is-betting-7-dot-65-billion-that-it-knows-what-tv-will-look-like-in-2032">US$7.65 billion that American network NBC paid</a> the International Olympic Committee for Olympic rights until 2032. </p>
<p>Add in the costs of dozens of expert staff, high-priced commentators, expensive broadcast equipment and new technology, the production of sport is a pricey endeavour.</p>
<p>But it had seemed sports value to broadcasters – <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-sport-broadcast-rights-worth-the-money-37460">that it is a product best watched live and delivering a large, diverse audience</a> – would protect it from the problems that have plagued other media content in the 21st century.</p>
<h2>The declining value of sport</h2>
<p>However, the once infallible attraction of sport may be faltering. In the United States live sport hasn’t prevented falling pay television subscriber numbers, and <a href="http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/tv/tv-sports-rights-cost-a-fortune-but-audiences-have-peaked--thats-a-problem-20150901-gjcmrq">some have suggested the ballooning cost of sports broadcast rights is to blame. </a></p>
<p>While the advertising rates for the NFL’s annual Superbowl continue to climb, there is anecdotal evidence that sport is not the advertising bonanza it once was for free-to-air television. </p>
<p>In Australia last year, Nine Melbourne chief Ian Paterson told a conference it was unlikely the advertising sold for sports timeslots would cover the price spent on the rights. Instead, sport was recast as a promotional vehicle. Paterson <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/09/no-end-in-sight-for-ballooning-cost-of-sports-deals-says-nine-boss/">told Crikey</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Through sport broadcasts, we attract advertisers and people, and are able to present to them the rest of what we do.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The sports broadcasting media business model is not shattered, but there may be cracks. Which is why sports organisations are increasingly working with sports broadcasters, and sometimes instead of them, to deliver their product to the people.</p>
<h2>Sports organisations as media providers</h2>
<p>It’s a requirement of most major sports events that there is a <a href="https://www.obs.tv/our_role.php">host broadcast feed</a>, with unbiased commentary, pushed out to television stations globally. While existing broadcasters used to produce these feeds, more sports organisations are taking control. </p>
<p>Tennis Australia started producing the Australian Open’s world feed in 2014 and its chief executive Craig Tiley <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/australian-open-broadcast-production-fillip-for-tennis-australia-20150128-1304dn#ixzz3yrcodSTy">told The Australian Financial Review:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Having control over the production of the broadcast is atypical in terms of Australian sports. But it has allowed us to package the broadcast for particular markets and move quickly to provide different feeds to markets overseas.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, this isn’t usual practice for regular, professional sports leagues.</p>
<p>In 2015, the Australian and New Zealand netball competition changed that. Unable to secure a broadcast deal, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/netball/netball-pays-channel-ten-to-televise-games-in-groundbreaking-deal-20150226-13q5aj.html">the ANZ Championship instead paid for its league to be shown on free-to-air television in Australia</a>. By controlling the broadcast, netball also gained greater power to direct the narrative. Which is where questions of ethics enter.</p>
<h2>Ethics in sports broadcasting</h2>
<p>The defining ethical issue with sponsored content in news is that it butts up against one of the defining values of journalism, that journalists act as the fourth estate. In this role they keep institutions honest and tell the public what it needs to know. </p>
<p>Sponsored content is in conflict with these fundamental elements of journalism, as it means the journalist is no longer unbiased and independent. When considering sports organisations as content providers the key question then becomes, do sports consumers actually expect sports broadcasts to be acts of journalism? Do they mind that the telecast is produced by a sports organisation with a vested interest in the wellbeing of that code?</p>
<p>It’s a tricky question to answer because consumers of sports broadcasts may be unaware that these subtle changes have been made, that they are watching a feed paid for by a sports organisation. </p>
<p>However, <a href="http://com.sagepub.com/content/1/1-2/164.refs">academic research</a> concludes there are multiple reasons fans watch sport, but mostly they are based on the emotional reward, the entertainment value, the sense of companionship and an ability to escape.</p>
<p>Generally, consumers do not watch sports broadcasts to be informed. They watch to be entertained. If this is the case, the sponsored content model may attract less backlash in sports broadcasting than it has in other media products.</p>
<h2>The future: sports organisations as rights-holders</h2>
<p>But perhaps the most important point to consider is not whether sports broadcasters will continue to publish content created by sports organisations, but whether sports organisations will continue to sell their rights.</p>
<p>Many professional sports organisations globally have realised the economic potential in creating and broadcasting their own content. Examples include Major League Baseball’s MLB TV, Manchester United’s pay television channel MUTV, and the Australian Football League’s AFL Media. All these organisations deliver premium content directly to consumers, often for a price. </p>
<p>Broadcasting rights continue to be the major revenue stream for professional sports organisations and the audience mainstream media provide is still useful, so it is unlikely sports organisations will become the sole broadcasters of their own product. But if it makes business sense for sports organisations to become their own producers, get ready for a whole new ball game.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merryn Sherwood consults to the International Triathlon Union.</span></em></p>As more and more sporting bodies seek to speak directly to consumers, independence could disappear. Will consumers care?Merryn Sherwood, Sports Journalism Lecturer, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/535862016-02-24T15:26:22Z2016-02-24T15:26:22ZAre micropayments a viable way to support the news business?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112391/original/image-20160222-25855-d1852n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Janaka Dharmasena/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</em></p>
<p><em>In the latest in our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">business models for the news media</a>, journalist and academic Jane Singer looks at the use of micropayments.</em></p>
<p>Once upon a time, the gap between the relatively low supply of something in high demand – timely and trustworthy information – generated enormous profits for news publishers. But over the past 15 years or so, the digital, social and mobile revolutions have all but obliterated that gap.</p>
<p>In response, publishers have scrambled for new revenue streams, and much recent attention <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20395407">has turned to “micropayments”</a> – the payment of a very small amount to access a comparably small bit of content, such as a single story. </p>
<p>The traditional media world is one of <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/03/newspapers">bundled information</a>, with a lot of diverse content in one package that aims to provide something for everyone. The digital world, though, is an unbundled one. It enables each individual to select one item at a time from among the billions of things on offer. Are we willing to pay for this content? Sometimes yes – see iTunes. </p>
<p>But the question for news outlets is whether personalised news can follow the lead of personalised entertainment in generating interest and – in their fondest dreams – income. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111534/original/image-20160215-22560-n0znp3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blendle is poised to take on the US market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Blendle</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, news micropayment initiatives are – at best – a work in progress. The most buzz has been around a Dutch service called <a href="https://blendle.com/">Blendle</a>, which claims half a million registered users in Europe and is poised to tackle the US market. Most items on Blendle, which come from diverse outlets, cost between 10 cents and 90 cents and come with a money-back guarantee: you only pay for stories you actually read – and if you then don’t like them, you can ask for your pennies back. </p>
<p>The slick interface appeals to fans, as does the lack of advertising (and advertising’s attendant clickbait). But others have <a href="https://medium.com/@wfederman/micropayments-for-news-articles-are-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-idea-267930d95a3a#.xb3x05vzl">flatly predicted the concept is doomed to fail</a>. News consumers want to pay nothing, they say, and even a very small amount of money is not nothing. </p>
<h2>Who pays the piper?</h2>
<p>But perhaps the model here is not an “iTunes for journalism”, if by journalism we mean big-name branded content. Perhaps a crowdfunding site such as <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/">Kickstarter</a> offers a better template – the ability for users to stack their coins behind ideas they want to see developed rather than existing stories they want to read. </p>
<p>Experiments with crowdfunded journalism have proliferated. One flavour is essentially a low-cost membership model that allows its member – or donors – to steer journalists to topics of interest. MinnPost, a <a href="https://www.minnpost.com/about">non-profit site in Minnesota</a>, has made good use of this approach. For instance, a New Americans beat, which covers the state’s immigrant and refugee communities, was launched last October based on pledges from interested donors. </p>
<p>In Scotland, a new investigative journalism site called <a href="https://theferret.scot/">The Ferret</a> also pursues topics that its users say they want; <a href="https://theferret.scot/?s=fracking">fracking</a> was an early example. And in the Netherlands, <a href="https://medium.com/de-correspondent/heres-what-happend-to-that-world-record-in-journalism-crowdfunding-cc5bac50b812#.ve7qe4mso">de Correspondent</a> drew donations of more than a million euros in just eight days simply on the promise of delivering high-quality stories about important topics rather than “the latest hype”.</p>
<p>The other approach reverses the process, in a way, and is closer to the familiar crowdfunding concept – journalists propose ideas they would like to pursue and users back the ones they like. Stories that meet their funding target get written; those that don’t, don’t. Perhaps the most innovative example came from a British site called <a href="http://www.contributoria.com/">Contributoria</a>, backed by the Guardian Media Group. Over a period of 21 months in 2014 and 2015, Contributoria published nearly 800 articles on topics from <a href="http://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-09/53983b9dde2e235b6e000001/">urban regeneration in Beirut</a> to <a href="http://www.contributoria.com/issue/2014-12/544128ff96bd93a404000051/">a day in the life of a bookie</a>; its writers earned a total of £260,000 over that time, most of it built up from quite small individual payments. </p>
<h2>Sustainability</h2>
<p>However, such experiments have proved hard to sustain. Contributoria closed in October 2015, with its co-founder declaring that crowdfunding was <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/contributoria-closes-but-its-team-still-sees-a-future-for-people-supported-journalism-/s2/a566305/">just one piece of the puzzle</a>. What the initiative really showed, he told journalism.co.uk, was that people have a “voracious appetite … to be part of the journalism process, including the way it gets financed”. </p>
<p>Perhaps that is, for now, the takeaway point on micropayments. The desire being given voice is less about paying for journalism than for having a stake in it. News organisations fervently hope that stake will be financial, but for users, “ownership” of the news seems more important than the payment involved.</p>
<p>As information proliferates wildly, consumers are saying they want a sense of control over it. Digital media gives them the ability to be reporters, but mostly, they seem to want to be editors: the gatekeepers who decide what news they will see by commissioning a freelance article, or steering an investigative team toward a topic, or engaging with this niche news app but not that one.</p>
<h2>Getting the mix right</h2>
<p>For news organisations, then, micropayments are just one option among many in a fragile and fractured digital ecosystem – something to add to the revenue mix if doing so requires only small investments of time, effort or money. </p>
<p>While experimentation is all to the good, the pay-off from this option seems inherently small. The vast majority of online users <a href="http://www.cjr.org/analysis/reuters_digital_news_report.php">do not pay now for digital news and have no plans to change their ways</a>. There’s no evidence of a massive demand from users for the ability to pay upfront to read news content – and, even if there were, the small amount of revenue generated on any given day would fluctuate considerably depending on what was on offer. This is not the most desirable funding model for organisations that need a stable financial base to support staff, infrastructure and the <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2014/06/holding-power-to-account.html">ongoing ability to hold the powerful to account</a>. </p>
<p>The reverse option – enabling news consumers to steer the direction of journalistic investigations – seems more plausible and the various non-profit enterprises I’ve mentioned are among those offering examples of ways this might work. </p>
<p>But news users aren’t the only ones who like to be in control. Journalists tend to be fiercely committed to the notion of editorial independence – which is another way of saying that they like to decide for themselves what is and isn’t news. Whether they will be willing to share that control – and, if so, what they might be able to extract from users in exchange – remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53586/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane B. Singer is affiliated with the Online News Association and several academic organisations in the field of journalism studies. </span></em></p>It worked for ‘iTunes’, but news organisations experimenting with ‘pay-to-read’ models are finding that users want to have a say in what makes the news.Jane B. Singer, Professor of Journalism Innovation , City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538022016-02-23T19:04:03Z2016-02-23T19:04:03ZHow Netflix and ‘original’ series TV are rescripting the business of television<p><em>The global media sector continues to adapt slowly to digital disruption. Paywalls are yet to make up for the loss of print advertising revenue, and experiments continue with sponsored content and micropayments. In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/media-business-models">media business models</a> series we explore the green shoots in media models – what’s working, and what’s yet to be proven.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Earlier this month, YouTube’s new subscription video on demand service (SVOD) YouTube Red <a href="http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/02/10/youtube-red-originals-slate-gigi-goregeous-awesomenesstv/">launched</a> its first swag of “original” programs. This followed news of significant rights acquisitions by SVOD services at the Sundance and Berlin Film Festivals, and award ceremony successes (and disappointments) for Netflix and Amazon. </p>
<p>These events point the way to dramatic changes in the business of television. They have implications for producers, traditional television services, major film studios, and viewers around the world. Online SVOD services are increasingly commissioning and purchasing content for premiere screenings, rather than simply operating as aggregators of content from other sources.</p>
<p>In industry parlance, this is “original” content. “Original” is however an interesting choice of term, given that many high-profile SVOD productions are revivals of shows first screened on traditional (or “linear”) television. For example, one of Netflix’s first commissions in 2013 was a new series of Arrested Development, a madcap sitcom that originally screened on network television in the early 2000s. </p>
<p>Some of Netflix’s forthcoming reboots include The Gilmore Girls (seven series to 2007), Fuller House (sequel to the American sitcom Full House that screened from 1987 to 1995), and Degrassi: Next Class, a revival of a Canadian high school drama that screened for fourteen seasons from 1979.</p>
<p>Netflix’s original feature films for 2016 include the sequel to the 2000 feature film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and a slate of films by Adam Sandler. One of Netflix’s main rivals, Amazon Prime, is financing Woody Allen’s next feature film. Allen is also producing a television series for Amazon that <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/woody-allen-new-amazon-tv-show-was-a-catastrophic-mistake-and-an-embarrassment-10254463.html">he has described</a> as “a catastrophic mistake” and “an embarrassment”.</p>
<p>Along with the ever-growing number of awards nominations for SVOD originals, the financial muscle of the major services is beginning to be felt in both film and television. Towards the end of 2015, <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflixs-global-push-means-big-863401">Netflix announced</a> it expected to spend US$5 billion on content in 2016. About a quarter – US$1.2 billion – was slated to be spent on original content. About a quarter of that figure – around US$300 million – is to be spent outside the US.</p>
<h2>Boom in production</h2>
<p>Given the international success of original series such as Narcos, and the Mexican series Club de Cuervos, it is reasonable to assume that this last figure will continue to rise. Indeed, Netflix currently has a number of international projects in production, or scheduled for screening later this year. These include the Indian teen comedy film Brahman Naman, the Brazilian science fiction series 3%, the French-language political thriller Marseilles starring Gerard Depardieu, the Italian Mafia series Suburra, and the Korean monster movie Okja. These last three titles all form part of Netflix’s strategy to grow subscriptions in those respective markets, although all are likely to be screened in most, if not all, of the 190 countries in which the service is currently available.</p>
<p>The value and impact of these international plays is underscored by <a href="http://variety.com/2016/digital/festivals/netflix-disrupts-euro-drama-crown-marseille-1201698769/">Netflix’s recent activity in Britain</a>. The SVOD service out-manouevred traditional television powerhouses BBC and ITV to win the rights to screen British royal family drama series The Crown. The series is reported to have cost over £100 million, making it one of the costliest first-season television series in history.</p>
<p>These shows are just some among the 31 scripted comedy/drama series, 10 feature films, 30 children’s shows, 12 documentaries, and 10 stand-up comedy specials <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/7/9866570/netflix-double-original-programming-2016">Netflix plans to make</a> around the world this year. </p>
<p>But Netflix has yet to commission any original Australian content. This is despite <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dongroves/2016/02/15/netflix-drives-surge-in-online-video-revenues-in-australia/#71e092af7f92">reaching over 1 million Australian subscribers</a>, and despite the prominence of Australian talent in Netflix series Orange is the New Black (Yael Stone, Ruby Rose), Jessica Jones (Eka Darville, Rachael Taylor), Bloodline (Ben Mendelsohn), Daredevil (digital artist Patrick Clair), and Baz Luhrman’s forthcoming series The Get Down. </p>
<p>Rival Australian service Stan (owned by Nine Entertainment and Fairfax Media) has begun to support local projects, recognising that original Australian content gives it a significant point of difference from Netflix. In December 2015, Stan commissioned a second series of the police sitcom No Activity. A six part series based on the Wolf Creek films is due to debut later this year. This latter series represents the federal funding agency <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/stan-original-series-wolf-creek-cast-announced-325337">Screen Australia’s first drama co-financing venture with a streaming service</a>. </p>
<p>There are also other <a href="http://if.com.au/2015/09/24/article/VFDTXHFLNC.html">state</a> and <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding/documentary/ArtBites.aspx">platform-based programs</a> providing new opportunities for filmmakers.</p>
<p>For producers, the prospect of online SVOD services becoming a new funding source is a welcome development. The amounts paid for rights can however often be lower than that paid by traditional sources, especially for back catalogs. Some have <a href="http://www.thevideoink.com/features/the-netflix-effect-how-streaming-success-brought-blue-mountain-state-back-from-the-dead/#.Vsqj4ceXjzJ">managed to leverage buzz</a> on SVOD services for shows that were cancelled by traditional broadcasters to revive their work through crowd funding. </p>
<h2>Changing the rules</h2>
<p>Arguably a YouTube effect, the SVOD services have freed filmmakers from some of the disciplines of commercial television. No longer do producers necessarily have to follow the networks’ requirements that an hour of scheduled program time equate to anything between 35 and 55 minutes, depending on the amount of advertising permitted in a market. Narrative arcs are also changing, with binge viewing blunting the effectiveness of the end-of-episode cliffhanger.</p>
<p>The prospect of global distribution is particularly valuable for independent filmmakers. The global reach of some SVOD services could enable them to overcome limited cinema releases and piecemeal international sales. As producer and academic <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/01/netflix-and-amazon-offer-indie-filmmakers-hope-and-lots-of-money/">Tom Nunan told Wired magazine earlier this year</a>, “The idea that the streaming services can be our new arthouse circuit is just nothing short of lifesaving for these artistic storytellers”. </p>
<p>The optimism of independent producers was fired by the deals struck by Netflix and Amazon at the recent Sundance and Berlin Film Festivals. The SVODs’ activity pushed up the prices of many films. It also prompted established distributors to reconsider the relative values of streaming and theatrical rights. </p>
<h2>Online land grab</h2>
<p>The rise of streaming services has also forced changes in traditional television broadcasters’ approach to online. Hulu, owned by three of the major American broadcast networks, has been around for some years. Now, even the laggards are moving quickly in to this space. Networks such as Nine Entertainment in Australia, and CBS in the US have formed their own services (Stan and CBS All Access, respectively) as a means to compete with and deny the other services access to certain content. <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9664106/star-trek-cbs-all-access-streaming-wars-network-television">CBS, for example, announced in November that its Star Trek reboot would screen exclusively on the CBS All Access SVOD service</a>. Other broadcasters, such as Britain’s Channel 4, have taken the opposite tack and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/netflix-channel-4-matrix-kiss-me-first-lottie-moggach">entered co-production arrangements with the SVOD providers</a>. </p>
<p>While all of this activity in the online space might give the impression that the death knell has sounded for broadcast or linear television, that platform remains financially, socially and culturally powerful and influential. </p>
<p>There are signs in many markets of incremental decline in linear television, but it is likely that the new and the traditional services will live side by side for some years to come. New mechanisms for funding and distributing content are emerging, with state funding agencies and existing industry powerhouses at the forefront of innovation. And viewers have never had it so good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53802/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Goldsmith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The success of original series TV is opening up new opportunities for producers, owners and audiences.Ben Goldsmith, Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/540702016-02-23T12:28:40Z2016-02-23T12:28:40ZWill crowdfunding save journalism?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109993/original/image-20160202-32222-sa3j22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hat's all folks</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=guPTUxaCzkVm5wxx3x1u4Q&searchterm=press%20hat&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=66149689">Gert Lavsen</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</em></p>
<p><em>In the latest in our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">business models for the news media</a>, journalist and academic Angela Phillips looks at crowdfunding and how it might help pay for new media ventures.</em></p>
<p>Plans have been afoot for a new sports newspaper for Scotland. The proposed paper would be weekly and big names such as tennis coach Judy Murray and football pundit Pat Nevin signed up as columnists. All it requires is £50,000 in <a href="http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/scottish-sports-newspaper/">crowdfunding pledges</a> by February 25 and the first copy will drop in May. Developed by a group of Scottish journalists and fronted by media news site <a href="http://www.allmediascotland.com">AllMediaScotland</a>, those who pledge money would be rewarded with the first edition of the paper.</p>
<p>It looks very unlikely to get off the ground. Though many see crowdfunding projects as having the potential to make journalism viable for the future, the Scottish sports weekly has attracted 205 backers who have pledged just short of £10,000 since it was announced at the end of January. The Twitter account <a href="https://twitter.com/scotsportspaper">@ScotSportsPaper</a> has just over 1,200 followers. </p>
<p>Crowdfunding requires a large number of people ready to back an idea with money. The most successful attempts usually involve a product, so most people are simply paying in advance for it to be developed and then delivered. To be fair, that appears to be what this Scottish proposal has been aiming for. But the very best they could have hoped for was the beginning of a database, built up via pledges, which could then be converted into subscriptions. And without support from Scottish newspapers (which would see it as a rival), the launch team would have had to make its own waves.</p>
<h2>Bright spots</h2>
<p>There have been some isolated examples of success in funding start-up journalism projects through crowdfunding. The Dutch news site <a href="https://decorrespondent.nl/en">De Correspondent</a> was launched with a crowdfund of $1.7m (£1.2m), which allowed it to pay salaries for a group of well respected journalists. The 19,000 backers quickly became 28,000 subscribers and <a href="https://medium.com/de-correspondent/heres-what-happend-to-that-world-record-in-journalism-crowdfunding-cc5bac50b812#.kl0vu6cq3">within a year</a> the website had a viable model, paid for through subscription and a paywall. It is now an established part of the Dutch media scene.</p>
<p>This is one of those cases where the exception proves the rule, however. De Correspondent was launched into a news-media field which was ripe for a new voice. It got heavyweight backing from the start and, crucially, the funding was only intended for the launch – hence the more orthodox funding that has followed. </p>
<p>Other attempts at using crowdfunding include <a href="https://thebristolcable.org">The Bristol Cable</a>, an English local news magazine and website, which is “funded” by 600 shareholders paying £2.50 per month each. <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/how-the-bristol-cable-wants-to-democratise-local-media-/s2/a556313/">Launched</a> in 2014, it is a welcome independent voice in a local news environment <a href="http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ElephantintheroomFinalfinal.pdf">dominated by</a> large chains that have stripped back their journalism to cut costs. </p>
<p>The funding is not enough to cover wages, however. The Bristol journalists all work for free, very much in the same tradition as those responsible for the <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OHDhJOHynUIC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=radical+community+press+1970s&source=bl&ots=z5YIi_p_bN&sig=UKUyNSStNAaPXylXDBFxF6BQFnE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQiLCAiNnKAhWJtxoKHf0gCccQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=radical%20community%20press%201970s&f=false">radical local press</a> of the 1970s, which flowered briefly due to local enthusiasm and then died away. The only sustainable long-term funding for The Bristol Cable is likely to be display advertising in the magazine. As Christopher Thomson, chief executive of publisher <a href="http://www.dcthomson.co.uk">DC Thomson</a>, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc143-i/uc14301.htm">told the</a> House of Lords select committee on plurality in 2013, digital advertising was providing only 5%-10% of his group’s local newspaper income. Local news is still typically sustained by print. </p>
<p>Probably the biggest experiment in crowdfunding in the UK so far has been The Guardian’s <a href="https://membership.theguardian.com">membership scheme</a>. With The Guardian mainly funded through a mix of advertising revenue and trust funds, the membership scheme was launched in 2014 to help plug annual losses and put the news organisation on track to break even in the future. In the first six months, <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/guardian-membership-scheme-reaches-35000-2015-3?r=US&IR=T">according to</a> Business Insider, 35,000 people had signed up (Guardian.com <a href="http://www.abc.org.uk/Products-Services/Product-Page/?tid=22995">reaches</a> 8m people each day). Guardian Media Group <a href="http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/25/guardian-to-cut-costs-by-20/">recently revealed that</a> it had lost more than £100m over the last year, which is likely to lead to a 20% cut in staffing. Clearly a more sustainable income stream is needed than donations from concerned members of the public.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109994/original/image-20160202-32254-pu20tf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seeking funding: The Guardian.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=3P9h3eZyNhJWaFwl9Thk-A&searchterm=The%20Guardian&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=234299326">Gil C</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Funding stories</h2>
<p>Where crowdfunding has been a little more successful has been in funding individual journalism projects. A number of funding sites such as Kickstarter have dedicated sections, while sites such as <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/byline-a-new-wave-in-crowdfunding-/s2/a565733/">Byline</a> are exclusively intended for the purpose. An analysis of Kickstarter journalism projects by US research organisation PEW, <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/crowdfunding-is-on-the-rise-for-journalism-pew-report-finds/392415/">found that</a> in the past year they raised $1.7m. The bulk went to individuals for specific research, while 22% went to established organisations, such as the trust-funded <a href="https://www.propublica.org">ProPublica</a>, to help pay for specific projects. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109995/original/image-20160202-32227-1ji3kh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lend a hand …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=bycfEDMlNykeyTUCtnFHbQ&searchterm=crowdfunding&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=300284054">Girc</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/jcc4.12051/asset/jcc412051.pdf;jsessionid=953ADAB7DD5B58F41E397033AE571873.f04t01?v=1&t=ikzdcbk9&s=50303139847b8e55d2beb1479beb388fc35a83a6&systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+27th+February+from+09%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+04%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+17%3A00-22%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.">academic survey</a> of the US crowdfunding site for journalism, Spot.us, looked at the kinds of stories that people are prepared to fund. It concluded that donors go for “specific news topics that are of immediate utility to them in daily living”, particularly those about public health and city infrastructure. Spot.us unfortunately <a href="http://www.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/blogs/agahran/2015/02/spotus-ends-insights-community-news-crowdfunding">folded</a> a year ago, however. </p>
<p>Yet if crowdfunding looks relatively limited as a means of funding “watchdog” journalism that keeps a sceptical eye on people in power, this will have to be paid for by other means. We are in living in an era where the traditional funding from newspaper sales and advertising revenues is greatly reduced. Paywalls and metered content are proving to be a sustainable funding-method for some larger online publications. In the US, more than a third of news sites are behind <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2014/newspaper-industry-narrowed-revenue-loss-in-2013-as-paywall-plans-increased/247555/">paywalls</a>. </p>
<p>And new experiments with dedicated news platforms on which subscription money is shared via micropayments might start to do for news what Spotify has done for music – witness Dutch site <a href="https://launch.blendle.com">Blendle</a>, which has <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-times-axel-springer-invest-in-dutch-startup-blendle-1414408997">attracted funding</a> from the New York Times and Axel Springer; and <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/it-takes-commitment-lessons-from-piano-media-s-national-paywalls/s2/a564829/">Piano Media</a>, which is active in eastern Europe. Whether any of this will be of any help to the mooted Scottish sports weekly is another matter, but good journalism does not come free – that is as true in today’s digital era as it was in the days of hot metal and printing presses.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Phillips has received funding from Leverhulme and EPSRC Digital Economy ‘Communities and Culture’ Network+. She is a member of the Media Reform Coalition and the National Union of Journalists.
</span></em></p>The likes of Der Correspondent and Kickstarter raise the prospect of a new funding model for journalism. To some extent, we are kidding ourselves.Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/535852016-02-22T10:15:54Z2016-02-22T10:15:54ZAre paywalls saving journalism?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111808/original/image-20160217-19256-1xd0is.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/honestreporting/14231913293">"CC BY-SA HonestReporting.com, flickr/tristanf</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</em></p>
<p><em>Some of the big news organisations are imposing paywalls on their websites, while others believe in free access to their content. In the latest in our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">business models for the news media</a>, Tom Fell weighs up the pros and cons of paywalls.</em></p>
<p>There was a time, not so long ago, when newspaper presses may as well have been printing money. A combination of hefty advertising revenues and circulation growth saw huge profits flow into the coffers of owners and shareholders. But those days are long gone. The announcement that the UK’s Independent titles <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-independent-newspaper-dies-as-it-was-born-in-the-white-heat-of-technology-54690">are to cease printing in March</a> came as a surprise, but many with an eye on the newspaper industry had mused that it was not a question of if, but when, the Independent would go. Circulation had dropped to around 56,000 copies daily and print advertising rates remained in long-term decline.</p>
<p>The problem for newspapers – and their owners – is not that news has suddenly become unfashionable, it’s that making money out of news is proving increasingly difficult. The reasons for the collapse in profits are simple: for more than 100 years newspapers controlled the news and advertising markets, but digital technology has changed everything. Staples such as classified advertising, property and cars went quickly online. Newspapers were too slow to react to classified sites such as CraigsList and Gumtree – and lost the market.</p>
<p>At the same time titles have haemorrhaged circulation as news, once a prized commodity, is now freely available on a diversity of sites. Legacy news organisations initially gave everything away for free online, naively assuming their brands were invincible and that digital advertising would simply replace print loses. However digital revenues have proved elusive, and while online revenues are growing, the growth is nowhere near enough to offset the decline in print advertising and circulation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111635/original/image-20160216-19218-4hfc10.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ABC national circulation figures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the mid 2000s US and UK newspapers have lost close to <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/03/newsonomics-the-collapse-of-single-copy-sales/">50% in circulation</a> with few exceptions. Specialist titles, Sunday papers and broadsheets have fared slightly less badly than tabloids, but there is no good news for anyone in newsprint. While there are some examples, such as in Germany and Holland, where print circulation has held <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/10/the-newsonomics-of-2014-for-the-german-press/">up relatively well</a>, most titles are at best managing decline.</p>
<h2>Paying for quality</h2>
<p>Paywalls, introduced by a number of news companies in recent years in an effort to both put a value on the exclusive content they produced and to try to replace lost newspaper circulation, have worked to varying degrees.</p>
<p>In the US, big brands such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have both <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2016/02/14/wolff-prints-dead-but-so-digital/80284046/">struggled with how to monetise editorial content online</a>, however both have now implemented somewhat successful paywall models. The Washington Post introduced its somewhat porous <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2013/washington-post-paywall-will-launch-june-12/215323/">paywall in 2013</a> after struggling digitally for a number of years.</p>
<p>A similar approach is in operation at The New York Times, though it has <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/08/newsonomics-10-numbers-on-the-new-york-times-1-million-digital-subscriber-milestone/">had more successes digitally</a> in attracting paying subscribers and in converting print readers to sign up to seven-day delivery and online subscriptions. It now has more than a million digital subscribers.</p>
<p>News UK introduced a paywall for its news brands, including The Times and The Sunday Times in 2010, with The Sun following in 2013. While the strategy <a href="http://www.inma.org/blogs/conference/post.cfm/hard-paywall-takes-the-times-from-loss-to-profit">has been successful</a> with 170,000 Times subscribers, the company abandoned The Sun’s paywall late in 2015, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/30/sun-website-to-scrap-paywall">and announced plans</a> to aggressively grow its digital platform in 2016.</p>
<p>Of all media organisations with paywall or metered models, the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-financial-times-and-the-future-of-journalism">Financial Times remains one of the most successful</a>. Of a paid circulation of 720,000 in 2014, more than 500,000 were digital, up 20% on 2013. <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ft-digital-subscribers-14-cent-520k-now-make-70-cent-fts-paid-circulation">Half year figures for 2015</a> showed a year-on-year rise to 737,000 total circulation, with 520,000 digital subscribers.</p>
<p>The German media giant, Axel Springer, announced it was <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-09/axel-springer-considers-paywall-for-business-insider-upday-app">considering introducing paywalls</a> at its Upday app and newly acquired Business Insider last December. It has already introduced a metered paywall at popular Berlin daily Bild and banned readers with adblockers installed on their PCs from accessing its content.</p>
<p>Australian media giant <a href="http://www.newscorpaustralia.com/">News Corp Australia</a> – which owns The Australian, the Sydney based Daily Telegraph and most of the main regional titles – put its content behind a paywall in 2013. Fairfax, which owns the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, also introduced paywalls in 2013 – and <a href="http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/2016/02/17/fairfax-step-closer-ending-print/">subscriber numbers are steady while print circulation is falling off</a>.</p>
<h2>Dead giveaways</h2>
<p>But while media companies are still making significant revenues from print, any revenue from digital, while impressive in growth terms, remains tiny.
Digital revenues at The Sydney Morning Herald in 2014 were A$15m, compared with A$242m from print circulation and print advertising. Figures for 2015 from the Times Co (The New York Times parent company) show that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/business/media/new-york-times-co-reports-9-million-profit-in-3rd-quarter.html">digital subscriptions</a> were responsible for just under US$49m of US$365m in revenue during the third quarter of 2015.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111815/original/image-20160217-30543-cah9lc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Print versus online revenue for US newspapers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pew Research Center</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And not everyone has made a success of paywalls. Mid-market popular newspapers and tabloids, where a heady mix of “gotcha” journalism, crime stories, and celebrity and entertainment news have proved a recipe for huge popular success in the UK, have in most part steered away from paywalls – favouring instead high-volume mass market free content, with a heavy emphasis on content that plays well on social media. </p>
<p>The Daily Mail’s MailOnline site remains free, and is one of the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/digital-top-50-online-news-entities-2015/">largest news sites in the world</a>, with a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/20/mail-online-gains-17m-unique-browsers-as-newspaper-sites-bounce-back">global reach or more than 200m unique users</a> each month.</p>
<p>Other sites, including the UK’s Guardian, have remained free, relying instead on revenue from digital advertising. However the rise of adblockers has severely damaged the ability of such news sites to make money from advertising. The Guardian <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/25/guardian-news-media-to-cut-running-costs">reported losses of £53m in 2015</a> and announced it would cut costs by 20%, blaming a sharp decline in print advertising and slower than expected growth in digital revenues.</p>
<p>For smaller players, the market remains challenging. Regional and local newspapers have little or no prospect of introducing successful paywall models. Economies of scale mean their potential audiences are too small to monetise via digital advertising. For now, most are clinging to their print editions (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/14/mediabusiness-local-newspapers">which remain profitable</a>) and using websites to build brands and market share.</p>
<p>ABC1 readership newspapers – in other words, those appealing to the middle classes – and niche brands such as business titles, where content is exclusive and in demand, seem to be making paywalls work. For everyone else the future looks bleak.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Felle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Comment may be free, but newspapers have got to make money somehow.Tom Felle, Lecturer in News and Digital Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/550132016-02-19T04:19:05Z2016-02-19T04:19:05ZMore staff cuts likely as Fairfax eyes digital only<p>There seems to be no end to Fairfax’s restructuring saga. On Friday, the company’s management signalled they would continue to cut costs no matter what. <a href="http://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/ArticleDocuments/193/2016-02-19_FY16%20Half-Year%20Results%20-%20ASX%20Statement.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y">CEO Greg Hywood</a> said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We have made clear many times that we are managing a structural shift in publishing from print to digital. We continue to adapt business model to this reality, which involves an intense focus on cost reduction.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This week Fairfax also said it <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/business/business/market/2016/02/16/fairfax-media-planning-to-axe-70-nz-jobs.html">would shed 70 jobs</a> in New Zealand as it moves sub-editing work back to Pagemasters. </p>
<p>Figures published in <a href="http://www.fairfaxmedia.com.au/Investors/annual-reports">Fairfax’s 2015 Annual Report</a> show that between 2011 and 2015 the company cut 30% of its full-time employees. Today’s 2016 half-year results show that during the last four years Fairfax has cut its cost base by 34%, clearly on the back of staff reductions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112077/original/image-20160219-1261-131z5k1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fairfax Annual Report 2015</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An internal restructure this week saw the departure of The Age’s editor-in-chief, Andrew Holden, and the abolition of AM and PM news directors. <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/02/18/clickbait-on-the-front-page-fairfax-backs-away-from-print/">Commentators say</a> the new structure will increase clickbait content on the Fairfax papers. Under the new structure, says Crikey media writer Myriam Robin, “editors of the papers will no longer work closely with journalists and commission stories; instead, the print editors will scrape together material already put on Fairfax’s websites to fill their papers”. </p>
<h2>Cost cutting: ‘short-term cost, long-term benefits’</h2>
<p>However, Fairfax is not the only news publisher focusing on cost cutting, or reinventing its newsroom strategies. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/business/media/new-york-times-q4-earnings-newsroom-strategy.html?_r=0">The New York Times Company </a> announced earlier in February that despite strong growth in digital revenue in the fourth quarter, it continued to “feel the impact of declines in parts of our print business”. Dean Baquet, the newspaper’s executive, said “the company must continue to carefully manage its costs”, and that “everything we do now has got to include a certain amount of thinking about costs”. He didn’t rule out layoffs.</p>
<p>Similarly, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is planning to further cut costs in its Australian and British mastheads after poor results in the 2016 second quarter. While commenting on News Corp results, chief executive <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/05/news-corp-announces-cost-cutting-at-australian-and-british-newspapers">Robert Thomson</a> said that “for our Australian mastheads, it was clearly a difficult quarter in advertising and to that extent we’ve clearly embarked on a cost-cutting program”. He added that “cost cutting has a short-term cost and a long-term benefit”.</p>
<h2>Following The Independent’s example?</h2>
<p>We know that in 2013 Fairfax asked Bain & Co to undertake a “detailed analysis” of the benefits of going entirely digital, shrinking its editorial team from 503 to 205. </p>
<p>Now, a similar move actually underway at The Independent in the UK will see the loss of approximately 100 editorial jobs.</p>
<p>Is Fairfax ready for such a move? </p>
<p>Fairfax’s numbers show it still has a long way to go to be truly digital-led.</p>
<p>The company’s digital subscription revenue rose 14.3% on the back of “around 162,000 digital subscribers across the SMH and The Age”. In 2015, the two papers had 158,000 digital subscribers. The real driver in its digital earnings was Domain, which saw digital advertising revenue growth of 37%.</p>
<p>To see if the digital-only model would work, let’s do some simple math.</p>
<p>In the first half of 2016, the combined digital advertising and subscription revenue of Fairfax’s metropolitan media was A$149 million, whereas revenue from its print advertising and circulation was A$252 million - a gap of A$103 million in favour of print. </p>
<p>The digital advertising income of metropolitan media rose A$24.3 million to A$131 million from the same time last year, and the digital subscription revenue A$2.2 million to A$18 million over the same period. </p>
<p>To simplify, in the first half of 2016, the digital revenue of Fairfax’s metropolitan media made 15.5% of the company’s total revenue of A$958 million. In comparison, print papers of metropolitan media made 26.3% of the total revenue.</p>
<p>Clearly Fairfax still needs the print for the revenue, but if it continues its heavy cost cutting, the digital-only model could be closer to reality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The transition from print to digital will not be painless at Fairfax, or its global peers.Merja Myllylahti, Lecturer, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/532872016-01-27T04:04:40Z2016-01-27T04:04:40ZAd blockers are here to stay, micropayments less so<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109308/original/image-20160127-19660-1h7n9ve.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will the plethora of conflicting market signals be too much for news consumers to bear?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The global media sector continues to adapt slowly to digital disruption. Paywalls are yet to make up for the loss of print advertising revenue, and experiments continue with sponsored content and micropayments. In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/media-business-models">media business models</a> series we explore the green shoots in media models – what’s working, and what’s yet to be proven.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Another year, another crisis in traditional media. Most recently, it has been The Guardian announcing it needs to <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-media-guardian-idUKKCN0V31Q8">cut costs by 20%</a>, as the revenues from online advertising cannot compensate for the losses of revenue from its print editions. </p>
<p>The situation with online advertising is worsening, not only because the rates advertisers are prepared to pay continue to fall – they are quite simply spoilt for choice in terms of online outlets – but because more and more people use ad blocking software. It is now estimated that <a href="http://www.campaignlive.com/article/ad-blockers-gain-ground-consumers-say-enough/1326412">almost half of online users aged 18 to 29 use ad-blocking software</a>, for reasons that range from concerns about third-party access to their search data, performance issues, and a hostility to advertising being a part of their online experience.</p>
<p>An option to advertising challenges that is generating considerable discussion is the use of micropayments to fund journalism and other media activities. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109303/original/image-20160127-19680-eg39i0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steven Depolo/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-with-micropayments-in-journalism-365-days-later-f3b799022edc#.q9galajen">Blendle</a> in The Netherlands has now operated for more than a year on a micropayments model, where users register once only, only pay for the news stories they access, and can request a refund if they were dissatisfied with the story they accessed e.g. if they thought it was “clickbait”. <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/the-micropayment-platform-blendle-is-expanding-to-germany/">German publishers</a> are now working with Blendle on developing this model. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/sep/14/canadian-newspaper-uses-micropayments-system-to-charge-online-readers">Winnipeg Free Press</a> in Canada has adopted a micropayments system, and the concept is attracting growing attention in the <a href="http://thenextweb.com/media/2016/01/25/future-media-monetization-cryptocurrencies-micropayments/#gref">tech community</a>, particularly as virtual currency systems such as Blockchain are being adopted and as Facebook Connect is developed for games platforms. </p>
<p>Micropayments are a logical extension of both the unbundling of media content, particularly in news, and an increasingly user-driven online experience. But they have also long had their critics. Social media theorist Clay Shirky has been a <a href="http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html">long-time critic of micropayments</a>, arguing they risk enveloping users is an endless decision-making loop, and that the “mental transaction costs” of deciding whether or not to pay for particular items of content would ultimately prove too burdensome to users. </p>
<h2>Endless choice</h2>
<p>Most debates about micropayments have focused on the consumer side. Is it a desirable option to have, or are we being spoilt by too much choice? Once we start pricing individual pieces of journalism, will the plethora of conflicting market signals be too much to bear? Should we be paying for the story, or paying the journalist, and so on. If a news outlet is one whose journalism you are particularly keen to support, it arguably makes more sense to make a one-off donation to it than make large numbers of small transactions on individual stories, particularly if that donation is tax deductible. Critics such as Shirky rightly point to a fallacy of assuming people do not notice small payments as compared to large ones: once there are a lot of them, they certainly do. </p>
<p>The bigger problems, I would argue, reside on the supply side. The founders of Blendle readily acknowledge that their 250,000-plus users will not pay for news, but will pay for quality commentary. As they put it, <a href="https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-with-micropayments-in-journalism-365-days-later-f3b799022edc#.q9galajen">“people don’t want to spend money on the ‘what’, they want to spend money on the ‘why’”</a>. But the providers of quality content typically require a stable source of income – the “gig economy” model is less likely to work for detailed analysis of a subject than it is for quick, real time reporting on particular events. A story like the famous account in <a href="https://www.vice.com/tag/isis">VICE</a> of what was going on inside ISIS, which established VICE as a significant news outlet and which is the sort of content for which people will pay, requires people who are prepared to embed themselves within a location for a period of time. </p>
<p>And for that kind of work, they require either cash up front, or the security of other forms of full-time employment (a news organisation, a university etc.). The personal risks of doing such stories in the subsequent hope that people will pay for them are simply too great. This is one of the reasons why the situation for public service media is better, not worse, than it was two decades ago. We have seen how vulnerable the business models of commercial media have turned out to be, in terms of generating content, attracting paying consumers, and being able to recruit and retain talent. </p>
<p>So I would be expecting a certain amount of activity in 2016 around news micropayments. It is the topic of the moment, and news organisations are prepared to try anything, particularly as the online advertising market becomes more and more fragmented. But it is at best a supplement to other revenue generating strategies, more akin to the online dating sites and weekend creative writing classes that have generated alternative revenue streams in recent times. The core of the news business will not be funded by micropayments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53287/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Flew receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is part of an ARC-Discovery Project researching politics, the media and the future of democracy in Australia. </span></em></p>Media consumers are spoilt for choice, making new revenue models difficult for publishers.Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communications, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/532142016-01-15T03:52:01Z2016-01-15T03:52:01ZAl Jazeera to close in America: the future will not be broadcast<p>Yesterday came the <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/13/al-jazeera-america-to-close-down.html">surprising announcement</a> that Al Jazeera America (AJAM), the not even three-year-old US news franchise of the Arab media giant, was shutting down. Come April this year, up to 800 journalists may be looking for work and <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/al-jazeera-to-shut-down-american-news-channel-1452713303">more than US$2 billion of Qatari government money</a> will have been spent on what many consider a failed venture.</p>
<p>While several factors were likely at play in Al Jazeera’s decision to close AJAM, it ultimately comes down to money. The collapse in global oil prices is having a particularly severe impact on the economies of the Persian Gulf, forcing the government of Qatar to do the same <a href="http://dohanews.co/spending-slashed-qatar-prepares-run-qr46-5-billion-deficit/">across-the-board belt tightening</a> as its neighbouring states. Al Jazeera’s Doha-based operations were last year hit by budget cuts and just today, Qatari petrol prices which are set and subsidised by the government were <a href="http://dohanews.co/qatar-increases-petrol-prices-from-midnight-tonight/">raised by 30-35% in a shock decision</a> that was surely not taken lightly.</p>
<p>As explanation for its closure, AJAM cited a “simply [un]sustainable” business model “in light of the economic challenges in the U.S. media marketplace”. But it’s worth remembering that AJAM, like most of its 24-hour news competitors, was not launched to generate profit. The rolling television news business is largely about prestige and influence, and Qatar has demonstrated over 20 years that it is prepared to pay handsomely for those things. But with pitiful ratings and no real prospect of improvement, Al Jazeera and its benefactors seem to have decided that the cost of AJAM was not worth the tiny returns it generated.</p>
<p>Part of the reason AJAM failed in the US was its decision to pursue traditional broadcast distribution via cable. As Al Jazeera researcher William Youmans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/14/this-is-what-doomed-al-jazeera-america/">noted</a>, restrictions placed on AJAM by cable providers were onerous and succeeded in preventing any significant leakage of content from the cable networks’ walled gardens to other platforms.</p>
<p>These restrictions forced potential AJAM viewers to be sitting in front of a TV set subscribed to the correct cable package and watching in real time. In 2016, when consumers expect to be able to dial up whatever content they want, on whatever device or platform they want, at whatever time they want, broadcasting exclusively at the wrong end of the cable dial is a sure path to failure.</p>
<p>Al Jazeera was also forced by its AJAM cable contracts to restrict American access to the enormously popular Al Jazeera English (AJE) livestream and its other online video content. AJAM’s failure is a testament to how ineffective this measure was in transitioning existing American Al Jazeera viewers to the new franchise.</p>
<p>In contrast, AJE, based in Qatar and broadcasting around the world via a multitude of platforms, is free to create and distribute content however it wishes. Television is still very much AJE’s primary focus, but its online arm is increasingly central to the channel’s operation. </p>
<p>While only one TV signal is beamed across the world to all viewers no matter where they are, AJE’s online arm targets specific content at different users based on a whole range of factors such as geographical location, social media preferences and the like. A large contingent of online journalists works alongside the main newsroom to augment the television output and create unique digital-only material. As a result, many AJE consumers never or rarely tune into the channel’s main TV signal.</p>
<p>Similarly, Al Jazeera’s digital-first startup, <a href="http://ajplus.net/english/">AJ+</a>, is going from strength to strength delivering short, sharp, engaging and shareable news content over social media networks and mobile apps. Barely a year old, the channel attracted <a href="http://digiday.com/publishers/al-jazeeras-distributed-content-unit-generated-2-2-bil-facebook-video-views-2015/">over 2 billion views</a> on Facebook alone in 2015.</p>
<p>Al Jazeera’s story in Australia is similar. The network certainly has a broadcast presence in Australia — primarily via AJE’s content-sharing partnerships with the ABC and SBS — but it is online that Al Jazeera is having the most impact. Despite its relatively low population, my own research (forthcoming) shows that Australia is the third-largest global source of traffic for AJE content online and that this Australian online audience continues to grow fast.</p>
<p>AJAM’s closure is a reminder that any of Al Jazeera’s operations could be wound up at a moment’s notice with the stroke of a pen. Having said that, it is difficult to foresee the same fate for AJE or the Arabic-language Al Jazeera channel any time soon. Unlike AJAM, those channels (despite recent challenges) remain enormously influential and probably continue to represent a valuable return on the government’s investment.</p>
<p>There is, however, one important lesson in AJAM’s closure for all media organisations in 2016, whether they exist for profit or for influence: the future of media is definitely not broadcast.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Bridges worked for Al Jazeera English on a freelance basis from 2010-2011.
Scott is the Managing Director of Australia-Middle East Journalism Exchange (AMEJE), a not-for-profit organisation that facilitates study tours for student journalists between Australia and the Middle East. AMEJE's study tours receive in-kind support from the Embassy of the State of Qatar in Australia.</span></em></p>Al Jazeera America was not launched to make a profit, but its traditional broadcast distribution model meant it also lacked influence.Scott Bridges, PhD candidate, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.